You know, one man’s trash is another man’s treasure. I’d say Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 is worth playing for a lot of reasons, but I think it’s got huge fundamental issues in both its combat and narrative design; it’s still on the short list for most outlets’ game of the year awards this year. Hades just got a sequel, and I didn’t even care for the first one. For many people, those two games are just about the only roguelikes or -lites they’ve ever played, but I don’t think they’re even good ones of those; the level generation is so limited that you’ll have seen all their permutations quite quickly, and the bonuses from boons just about all feel superfluous and interchangeable. Hollow Knight holds this legendary status among metroidvanias, and Silksong followed suit. I thought Hollow Knight was just fine, but I was surprised to find that this was the game with that sort of following. When facing the possibility of playing Silksong this year or about 5 other video games that came out this year, I don’t think Silksong is making the cut.
But your mileage will absolutely vary. These games have hype for a reason: a lot of people love them. You might, too.
A big part of the appeal of Hollow Knight and Hades are their respective art styles. They are both genuinely gorgeous games, and it really improves the experience. I would rather open up Hades again instead of, say, TBoI for exactly that reason, despite my thinking that TBoI is the better roguelike.
Admittedly I can’t bring myself to enjoy Hollow Knight at all, but that’s just an issue of me disliking metroidvanias.
hades’ strength is its narrative; hk’s strength is its worldbuilding.
it’s very difficult to stand out on pure gameplay in the 21st century.
I’d go for CO:E33 too. Its a decent enough game but I don’t understand the absolute hype it receives. Probably a 5/10 game for me.
I can answer this for you. So imagine a genre of game that you grew up playing, loved, and sunk possibly thousands of hours in. Now imagine for like 15 years they only made the most dogshit version of that genre of game. Then someone comes along and makes a decent, even passable, modern version of that game.
It’s like giving dirty water to a dehydrated person. Is the water good? Fuck yeah in the moment it’s fantastic. Is the water the greatest water you’ve ever had? Well technically no, but please don’t take away the dirty water please.
The worst part is, that decent game isn’t even in the same genre. E33 is too damn heavy on parrying. Imagine if all 2000-2015 Zelda games were garbage, and Breath of the Wild was the first good one. I’m sure some OoT fans wouldn’t be too thrilled, while a majority of gamers would be.
As a JRPG fan though, I concur, most JRPGs suck ass, and it’s often for the most obvious, easy to fix problems like slow combat speed, or throwaway random encounter design.
continues playing trails games in the corner
I played E33 for about 4 hours. The combat system is atrocious. It feels like I’m playing a turn based RPG but with elements of Dark Souls? The almost necessity of dodging in combat made me give the game up.
I just played it on easy difficulty then it became enjoyable for me.
Was it good though? I imagine you’d be AP starved until you get the Picto for AP on hit, and then it sounds like the opposite where you can spam costly skills.
I already said in my comment that I enjoyed it?
To clarify, I meant gameplay, because you can (and a lot of people do) turn on easy mode just to ignore it and focus on everything else.
The easy mode could win battles for you automatically and most people would “enjoy” it all the same, but I hardly think anyone would love it.
Edit: The context was explicitly combat, but, I feel there’s still a difference of enjoyable combat and actually engaging combat. Is parryless easy mode challenging enough?
Easy mode doesn’t mean you can ignore parrying in this game so yes I still enjoyed it.
All of the games you listed here were pretty under hyped IMO except for perhaps Silksong.
I understand this is all subjective, but I think you’re leaning toward like indie gaming hipster material with this comment…and that’s my opinion.
I leaned toward games that came highly recommended that I actually played.
I agree regarding Hollow Knight… It was fine. I don’t really get the hype though, people would make you believe it’s the best game ever made.
Ghost of Yotei
It’s good but way too long and gets really repetitive.
Just finished it with all achievements (except final Takezo fight, yet) in about 50 hours. It was a little repetitive yes, but it didn’t bother me much. The setting, presentation and gameplay checks all the boxes for me so I kept going.
But I would’ve also been happy if it was shorter. That’s my general opinion on games these days.
I turned the difficulty way down in the end just to finally get it done.
For me, it’s borderlands 2
I thought the gameplay was pretty good, in a “turn your brain off and shoot guys with gradually increasing numbers” kind if way, and I absolutely adored whenever Handsome Jack showed up, but that’s pretty much it
I’ve heard from more than a few sources that the shooting on that game’s peak, but it’s just kind of generic. Outside of Jack, I thought the writing was honestly pretty lacklustre as well, even getting annoying in more than one instance (CATCH A RIIIIIDE FUCK OFF DIPSHIT). The cell-shaded artsyle is quite pretty, I will give it that
At its core, I think it’s just… fine.
Did you play it solo or with people? I found the game to be fairly dull solo. It was better with people but the loot system still allowed a lot to be desired especially if you played with greedy people.
I’d played through about half of it myself years ago, and again fully with a friend recently
I get tired pretty quick of games where the multiplayer aspect is considered important to enjoying the game. If your friends are with you, you can enjoy literally sitting in the dirt doing basically nothing, just chatting. If your game requires me to also drag friends into it like some cultist, just to make it pass the bar into ‘fun’ then the game is a failure, plain and simple. They don’t get credit for the fun I brought with me to the show I paid for.
I love that game, spent hundreds of hours in it a while back, and don’t remember fuck all about the story.
it’s a shoot 'em up loot game, and it does a great job of it IMO
absolutely a brainded activity though. it and Bioshock are two different frames of mind when you’re playing them
Life
Graphics are great. Hardware requirements are low, but there are bugs that accumulate with more play time. Learning curve is infinite and permadeath is only option despite a bunch of claims to mod/patch it. PVP is broken, constant spawn camping and pay to play behavior. Microtransactions are a pain. Huge variety of mission types, yet it still ends up feeling like a bunch of fetch quests sometimes. Side quests are the way to go, the main campaign is not super rewarding
Side quests are the way to go, the main campaign is not super rewarding
The worst part is that you’re forced to spend at least 1/3 of your time playing grinding out the main campaign. Then you are highly incentivised to spend another 1/3 of your time in game not playing due to the rest mechanic. That only leaves 1/3 of your time in game for any other tasks, including extra preparation for the main quest. Not to mention the fatigue system which often leaves you unable to do side quests when you have the opportunity.
I’m glad I didn’t roll any of the classes with extra lives, to be honest.
Yeah, mid characters except few…
Mario Kart World.
Soundtrack is 11/10. But they dropped the ball hard on the entire open world aspect. Completely wasted the entire potential.
Instead we get lame ass intermission tracks that count as the first two laps of the next race, so you don’t even get to enjoy the new and remade tracks during championships, because you’ll blink and miss them.
I picked up Vampire Survivors, played one round, and was like yeah I think I’m done here.
I picked it up and thought “this is so stupid,” right before spending many hours playing it.
I don’t know how I managed to have gone through the game as long as I have. I got it for free when it was a giveaway on Epic. I feel that’s exactly the right price because really, it’s just an almost do-nothing but move slightly and just pick options kind of game. Got boring fast.
It started being really ridiculous when I got one character, a skeleton that threw bones, up to the point where all I see were just numbers, gems and other flying things from the abilities I picked. It just got comically stupid but still boring at the same time.
This game’s entire premise, was that it’s supposed to give you feel-good moments without having spending money like you normally would on mobile games. It behaves like a mobile game without MTX. But I think its problem is that it retains the other problems that mobile gaming has than just MTX, such as time-wasting, cheating you of your dopamine and all that.
Try out Magic Survival, the (way better) game VS was copied of
arc raiders
Do you have a general reason? Giving the name of the game doesn’t do much when i don’t know why you didn’t like it.
The Elden Ring.
The open world just did not do it to me. I enjoy much more tighter game world like in the previous souls games.
Most of the side bosses were unintresting and if you found them too late you were completely overpowered.
Open world sure did mean lots of wandering and dying until you figured out where to go. Still worth it but too much wasted time.
I still enjoyed Elden Ring, but I agree completely. I prefer the metroidvania world design of earlier From Software games. The sense of progression is one of the best parts of those games, and Elden Ring’s open world robs the it of a lot of the magic of earlier titles, where discoveries were around every corner and in every nook and cranny. I never felt the same joy of exploration and hard won progress as I did in Dark Souls, Bloodborne, and Sekiro.
Double-agreed, but from a different point. What frustrated me about Elden Ring was that some of the dungeons were literally the best designed soulsbourne levels I’ve ever played. Everything between those dungeons, though, just felt like open world slop. The game would have been pure crack if it had just been tighter.
If it were more linear akin to their older games and dramatically reduced the visual clutter of most bosses, it would’ve been perfect, but those two things brought it way down imo. These sorts of games excel in smaller, more linear but interconnected environments.
Friend recommended one of the hitman games. But the steam port is so incredibly janky in regards to controller layout. And it was fucking made for consoles is what’s bonkers!!!
I’ve never played a consoley Hitman nor tried a controller, but I loved the original hitman (silent assassin) and the original series sequels up till about Blood Money. I didnt enjoy Absolution, it’s too choreographed unlike the originals where you could actually be creative and kill people in a variety of ways.
Then got pretty confused when I realised they reset the numbering with “Hitman” and “Hitman 2” (why do games do this?) and just gave up at that point and haven’t tried them or anything newer
Huh what?
There’s a game series called “hitman”. A friend recommended one of the games. I installed it and had difficulty playing it because it was difficult to control the character. The game was made in an era when it needed to be released on consoles to be financially viable. If it is released on consoles, it follows that it needs to be made for people controlling the character with a “controller”. The steam deck is kinda set up as a “controller”.
Despite these two seemingly perfect intersections, the game does not play well on the steam deck.
Can you give me an example of what you found difficult? I’m unsure because, huh what?
They didn’t add controller support in the steam version so it’s more or less emulating the keyboard. I’m the top left corner it has “E”,“SPC”,& another key, and gives you a description of the action associated with those keys which change depending on the situation. Getting the rifle in the intro mission was a chore between picking up the case and having to choose it from the inventory to take it out, then trying to get into scoped mode because none of that is labeled on the action keys. Also having a joystick emulate a mouse comes with it’s own issues. It just wasn’t an enjoyable experience trying to pay it.
Are you playing the first Hitman game from the early 2000s by any chance? Because sounds like it. The new ones have full controller support, silly.
Blood money
Ah, Blood Money. Phenomenal game but old 🫤
That explains. What Hitman version are you referring to? You said Steam port but I own Hitman World of Assassination on Steam using an XBox controller, and I never thought the controls were poor. But you’re specifically talking about Steam Deck. I cannot comment on that
Blood money
Dungeons and Dragons 5e is less fun than 3.5e IMO.
There was more of a sense of character progression, and ability differentiation in 3.5e.
5e achieves balance by flattening the power curve.
For example, the attack bonus for a level 20 Fighter in 5e is just 4 points higher than it was at level 1 - same as a 5e Wizard. Both get +2 at lvl 1 and +6 at lvl 20
In 3.5e, a level 20 fighter’s attack bonus is 19 points higher than it was at level 1 (+1 to +20), but a wizard only gains half that much fighting prowess as they level up (+0 to +10).
All 5e characters are pretty much the same statistically & mechanically. Differentiation comes from role play, which is the least interesting part of the game for me.
I liked 4e the best.
4e did some really cool stuff while also going a bit off the rails for me. I think overall I like 5E more, but we played a ton of 4e and I’ll always remember it fondly. I was really into the more defined roles, and how classes were a bit more self contained so they could just keep making more and more niche ones
3.5e being the best is an opinion I’ve heard for my entire life. I would say preferring 5e is a more unpopular opinion.
I think this is one of the reasons why Pathfinder 2e has been doing so well.
It’s a middle ish ground and it feels good to progress.
My current issues with it are how underpowered the items are. So boring.
Heartbreaking that they decided static item attack rolls and DCs was a good idea. It’s my biggest gripe with the system. Some items, like the Holy Avenger, subvert this and are pretty good, but most items suuuuuck the instant you outlevel them. Like, Sparkblade is cool, who doesn’t like chain swordbeams? Anyone over level 4, aparrently, because every creature you come across has learned to dodge lightning from that sword in particular
2024 is even worse. On top of that, they also stack extra abilities, and try to give everyone everything.
One of these days I should try Pathfinder
Differentiation comes from role play, which is the least interesting part of the game for me.
Can you explain why you would play a TTRPG if you’re not interested in role play? Seems like a battle sim like warhammer, or just a video game might be the thing you’re looking for.
As a DM, the cooperative story telling IS the interesting part. D&D has never been an airtight game system, it’s a bunch if hand waving to give just enough illusion of structure and randomness so you don’t feel like you’re just arbitrarily deciding everything yourselves. But at the end of the day, you are. The characters and story you’re left with is the only thing of value.
I haven’t played any 3.5e proper, but I understand Pillars of Eternity 1 is largely based on it, and I’ve played a handful of the 2e games. I dig a lot of the changes in 5e. I wouldn’t say the power is so flat that the differentiation only comes down to role play; I’d say a lot of it comes from the apples and oranges comparisons between classes, like things beyond to-hit roles. Your fighter has no AoE attacks like the wizard has but has Second Wind and Action Surge, for instance. The advantage to flattening the differences a bit more is that your character’s role is less preordained (“you are playing class X, so you must be responsible for Y”) and that you are less hamstrung by the absence of one particular role, which scales better to small parties.
I started TTRPGs with Pathfinder (1e). Some people talk about it like some impossible thing to play. It does have a lot more detail than 5e, but it isn’t that bad. (I did play one character as a wrestler, who did grappling a lot, which is notoriously one of the most complex systems.)
5e sells itself as being simple, and it is in how little control it gives you. However, the rules are anything but simple. There’s so many contradictions and stipulations every player has to memorize. It’s a mess. For example, some spells can be used as bonus actions, but not if you’ve already cast a spell, except for some that can anyway. It’s stupid.
Pathfinder 2e seems to make things so much simpler for everything, while still giving players freedom. Actions are just actions. If you’ve got the points you can use them for anything. Movement, attacks, spells, etc. Pretty much everything just is what it says.
5e character progression does feel kind of bland.
I feel the 5e rules are poorly organized, too. Lots of interdependent rules scattered far from each other in the books, and sometimes buried in the middle of seemingly unrelated sections, so unless you’ve memorized multiple chapters, understanding how to resolve common situations sometimes requires stopping the game for 15-30 minutes while someone digs through the books to find all the relevant factors. Even when you do find the relevant info, it’s often in ambiguous language describing what could have been made perfectly clear with a few keywords. The books are pretty, and the text might be nice to read for entertainment, but they’re pretty bad the the job of being game manuals.
Does 3.5e use the d20 system? Does it have the advantage/disadvantage mechanic? I like those aspects of 5e; they’re simple and they help keep games moving along.
Maybe I should give it a try. Or perhaps 4e, which I have read does a better job of clearly defining its gameplay mechanics.
3.5 does use d20, but lacks advantage/disadvantage in favor of doing a lot more math every moment of every round of combat. This is the biggest appeal of 5e, it’s approachable and keeps the games moving.
I wouldn’t recommend 4e, it strongly suffers from the aforementioned “everyone can do everything and feels samey” much more than 5e.
Pathfinder 1e is basically just dnd 3.5, and as others have mentioned, PF2e is more of a middle ground
Cyberpunk 2077.
It’s okay, but it’s a far cry from giving me the feelings of a cyberpunk world in my opinion and I’m a massive fan of blade runner and the like.
Why am i spending so much time wandering at the street level where everywhere just looks and feels the same. Travelling is so boring.
And the voice acting of V (I played female) is so overreacted, it’s one of the cringiest performances in gaming, considering it’s meant to be all serious and whatnot.
Yeah ok im glad to hear someone say that about cyberpunk 2077. Its been only just ok, but I want to like it more, but I don’t so far lol
Agreed. I have bounced off this game a few times for similar reasons. For a game that is about a cyberpunk future, it felt so much like a gta clone. Having played the ttrpgs, I think I just have a different version of the world in my head, and the games version just feels off.
After Jesse died my motivation to continue dropped off a cliff. All the other characters are so boring and uninteresting. I cringe everytime johnny silver hand shows up. Also the driving and gunplay feels really really bad. Its got skyrim-like clunkiness without the flexibility and interesting world to make it worth while.
Not to mention the bombardment of phone calls and messages while trying to "mourn’. Awful pacing.
Yeah seriously, V gets so worked up over fucking everything and I just couldn’t give a fuck. Calm the fuck down and take your Xanax, V. She’s stressing me out over nothing.
Why am i spending so much time wandering at the street level where everywhere just looks and feels the same.
What game are you fucking playing?
“Looks and feels he same”!?
What are you even going on about? Every neighborhood, every nook and cranny, looks and feels different and has it’s own personality and story to tell!Night City is the real protagonist of the game! I could spend hours upon hours just walking those streets, experiencing the city (and have), and I’m far from the only one…
And the voice acting of V (I played female) is so overreacted, it’s one of the cringiest performances in gaming
I’m sorry, what? Cherami Leigh got a well deserved BAFTA nomination for that performance!
(Lost to Laura Bailey for her work as Abby on The Last of Us Part II.)What, were you playing with your eyes closed while listening to something else…?
My problem with Cyberpunk is it feels like all style and no substance. Night City is probably the best looking city I’ve ever seen in a game. The world designers did a phenomenal job with the visuals and atmosphere.
But it just doesn’t feel like there’s enough to do in the city or ways to interact with it or the NPCs. There should be more buildings you can enter and more activities to do. For me that’s what sets GTA and Red Dead apart from Cyberpunk. They have much more to do when you’re not on missions.
The game is definitely too sparse and spread out. It should’ve taken more inspiration from the likes of yakuza than gta and made a smaller but more dense world to play in where every nook and cranny ACTUALLY meant something rather than giving the illusion of doing so.
I agree. It feels like it would have benefitted more from being a linear game than an open world game.
To be fair style over substance is one of cyberpunk’s (the style, not specifically the game) main design philosophies…
But yeah, sure, the game could stand some more fleshing up. Most games could.
That said, there’s a lot of stories going on in Night City that you won’t get through quests, but are told bit by bit through messages, notes, minor encounters, and environment design… more than in most similar games I’ve played.
Would it be nice to be able to enter every building, take a job at any random hot dog stand, ignore the quests and, I don’t know, infiltrate Biotechnica and leak all their ugly business to the world…? Sure, but that’s not something V would do (without getting paid), especially once they’re on a timer, the engine probably wouldn’t be able to support, and, most importantly, we’d still be waiting for the game to come out.
This is something that still disappoints me despite all the updates made to add immersion. The street food vendors just kind of hang out and stare at you. That and how every vendor interaction is just popping open their inventory and grabbing things.
I remember Postal 2 having a really clunky attempt at customer to vendor speech interactions where both were NPCs. Not as cool as a ridable metro system, but still.
They could have at least given us some:
“What news from the provinces?”
“I’ve heard others say the same”
“Be seeing you”
deleted by creator
To me every nook and cranny just looks bland with nothing to do there. Everywhere just had the same sidewalks and railings. There’s no way i could ever navigate that game without waypoints.
And with the acting the emphasis she puts on certain words in a sentence just don’t match the situation and the others she’s talking to, and it feels like she swaps between extreme emotions on the same dialogue and it’s like tonal whiplash to me. There was no nuance to lay in between, and nothing to unpack for the listener. You know when she’s angry because she has her 110% angry voice on and so on.
Unless the situation is heightened and dire, it just never fit in my opinion. Her performance fits a stage play more than what’s meant to be an immersive video game in my opinion.
Jackie’s and Keanu’s voice acting though was stellar.
Prey. It’s inferior to the older Dishonored games in pretty much every aspect.
Wild, I had the opposite experience, I loved Prey (I also love the Dishonored games). What stuff did you end up not liking about Prey?
For me the difference is simply being a scardey baby who cant handle horror
Compared to Dishonored, Prey lacks all the movement. But I wouldn’t have compared it to Dishonored anyway; It’s more like System Shock 2 and is pretty good compared to that.
Unless they’re talking about the older Prey… 🤔
I felt dishonored offered many more options to move around, the level design had more surprises and verticality which multiplies options. Sneaking is a viable gameplay approach which I love (personal taste here). The characters and dialogs have a lot more depth and there is a lot more lore to discover along the way.
Also It might be my fault because I opted to avoid typhoon upgrades, but the mid game was really tedious due to ammo scarcity and the end game was too easy after that.
Doom dark ages. Just upgraded my computer, and I thought ‘hey, I really liked 2016 and eternal, this’ll be great, and it’s got great reviews’. Nah, the whole game just felt…okay. I might try it again at some point and mess with the difficulty settings, but I felt like I was forcing myself to play it the whole way through.
I’m grinding through this one now. The graphics are great, and the game does feel like a modern doom, but the fun does seem to be lacking.
I’ll finish it, but don’t think I’d replay it.
I personally didn’t love the atmosphere of this game. Didn’t feel very doom like. The gameplay mechanics are also different, but I got used to them. The game is turning more and more into a rhythm game like DDR or Guitar hero where you need to do the right attack at the right time depending on what enemy you’re dealing with.
All the souls games. I don’t get it, they’re just no fun 🤷♂️
Also, never finished doom eternal, far too busy. Dark ages was great tho
There was a time when I could not have imagined liking those kinds of games. My partner got me Dark Souls Prepare to Die Edition and I hated it. Hate may be too kind a word for how I felt. I’ve always loved metroidvanias and the style seemed right up my gothy, witchy alley, but I couldn’t get past the first basic zombie.
Then we watched a bunch of videos and realized that the game was designed to be played slowly and deliberately. There were no “junk” enemies and paying careful attention at all times was the game. When it clicked, it clicked, and now From Software games are my favorite.
I had a similar experience. Went the wrong way in DS1, headed straight for the catacombs, went “oh. This isn’t hard. This is punishing.” And dropped off. Later a friend gave me some guidance and some pointers on what the game did/didn’t expect of me and I’ve been a giant fan ever since.
Sekiro took me a little time to figure out what it expected from me, too, but now I absolutely adore that game. That’s more of a mechanical “what should I be doing in combat” statement of the fact that the game expects you to act aggressively while focusing on defense. Though
Souls games didn’t make sense to me until I saw Giant Bomb play through Demon’s Souls. Mechanics that I didn’t know were there were explained in plain English, and then I could better understand where I went wrong when I died.
I’ve enjoyed a lot of Soulslikes, but none of the ones made by FromSoft. Their style of providing poor explanations of mechanisms just makes no sense to me, even if you want to give players those moments of self-driven discovery.
Now I’m wondering, which non-From Soulslikes did you enjoy?
Another Crab’s Treasure, Stellar Blade, Jedi: FO and Survivor, Hollow Knight, Tunic, and lately Steelrising.
Some of those games are a bit easier but also have harder moments. To me, it’s about having a better-structured difficult curve.
I love the fuck out of dark fantasy. The problem is that while souls-games and Elden Ring, are drenched with dark fantasy elements, the game execution itself just didn’t appeal to me at all. I just don’t like the idea of tediousness mixed with a scale of difficulty where all and any progress of mine are just dashed because a slight misstep.
My first attempt was Dark Souls 3. I went in expecting challenging but rewarding battles, and a mysterious world to explore. Unfortunately, I found myself bored within an hour every time I played, and gave up on it after maybe a dozen sessions.
I tried Elden Ring maybe a year or two later. I stuck with it for longer, but the experience was roughly the same. The combat felt tedious. The art and animation didn’t appeal to my tastes. The world seemed big, but desolate. The controls somehow made me feel awkwardly disconnected from my character. Nothing about the game made me care about it at all. The biggest challenge was in keeping my eyelids open.
I wonder if I would find soulslikes more appealing if I had grown up on console games. They’re clearly popular, but it seems they just aren’t for me.
I actually bought DS3 twice, For the PS4 the first time, and couldn’t do anything. I’m not a console person by nature. Then I found out it was on PC, my jam, got it and OMG is that port shitty
All the souls games. I don’t get it
They’re memorisation timesinks
It depends on person and skill, a lot of people manage to beat a majority of bosses 1st try.
Also, personally, I just like using magic which makes some parts easier.
Honestly I think a lot of people miss that these games are full of soft difficulty options. Magic, in particular pyromancy, summons, there are lots of ways to make the game easier, and that’s a good thing!
I recently replayed Dark Souls 1 and tried a Strength build to see how it goes.
Full Havel’s straight up lets you face tank Artorias, and you’re taking almost a 1/15th of his health with just a hit.
Armor was nerfed after that, but still, it was rather hilarious. Magic was nerfed too by the virtue of bosses getting more gap closers and ranged attacks - by Elden Ring, magic is far from the boring “stay back and just spam attack” idea, but on the contrary, the cheesiest tactics I used when needed were Greatshields or dual jump attacks for stunning bosses. There’s videos out there of people beating Malenia by just shield poking her to death with a spear, and I certainly used that when I wasn’t having fun with Rellana. It’s crazy to me how most people just grab a greatsword and only use that the whole game, then say the game’s shallow or too hard.
I really struggled when I tried magic, and then in DS2 I picked up an ultragreatsword and great shield and the game just felt right to play. Like, every boss timing seemed to be perfectly in line with my speed, where before it was always a struggle to refrain from trying to get one last button mash in with the faster weapons.
Deep Rock Galactic. I was really excited to play it and I tried to like it. The colors and graphics were 10/10 awesome, I just found it to be extremely boring and repetitive.
For me, deep rock really shines when you’re playing the higher hazard levels. Seeing a wall of the cave move because it’s covered in enemies, and then hitting them with a fat boy gave me happy chemicals.
Man I LOVE drg. A good team on a call made this the most fun I’ve had playing in recent years. Unfortunately, the population is lower and one may have trouble finding new players. Veterans are usually happy to help, but you’d need a patient one.
Very fair, I had a lot of fun with it as a casual game to relax with. Not so easy it’s trivial, not so hard it needs a lot of thinking.
