Topic: Has anyone played any good video games lately?

[Inkidu]

Yeah, there's some strategizing there but if you can make it through the first month you'll likely be fine, even on classic ironman. The only time I get in trouble with the geoscape is early on when coverage is bad and you can get multiple missions to the same area. Easy for panic to get dangerously high with some bad options in mission locations.

Yeah, never think that. The first month of my current game was cake, every month after that has sought to correct that error.

[Shouron]

I personally think games today are piss easy compared to the old games. (Mario Bros. NES, Dragon Warrior, Legend of Zelda, etc.) The games were difficult in their own unique way and playing the games was fun simply because even though you may or may not be good at it.. but the game itself was still fun. Now it's like this : put a game on the highest difficulty, get enemies with more HP and little else, checkpoints every ten minutes, then beat the game in a little over 8 hours.

I love games that are almost impossible to beat or take a long time to do so (12+ hours not including post game) because it shows the game was a bit more about the game than just looking pretty or testing something new.

Like I think Tomb Raider for the PS3 is crap simply because it is piss easy and is all about Square Enix's pride in their graphics. Eidos made the games far superior to that. But, to each their own, I will play and beat the game but enjoying it may come later.

That being said, I am currently playing Tales of Graces f for the PS3 and Pokemon Y.

[Inkidu]

Easy is subjective. Besides, no one wants hard games. They want challenging ones.

[Shjade]

Many games are easier now compared to their predecessors in large part because earlier games were pretty opaque. Zelda 2, for instance: huge world, almost nothing to help you figure out where you're supposed to go in it. That made it a lot harder than it needed to be, and not in a way that made it more fun. If the NPCs had given advice that actually made sense it would've been more sensible in that respect without affecting the challenge of the gameplay at all.

Just getting used to how to play games is also a factor. When I go back and play old games for nostalgia...most of them aren't any harder than current-day games on the whole. Maybe they're more punishing - limited lives/continues, time limits that give you an immediate game over when they run out, etc. - but for the most part they aren't any harder to play. Their "fake difficulty" just operates differently than modern games.

The concept of "games today are way easier than they used to be" is a myth as far as I'm concerned, a combination of years of experience with gaming making games seem easier as a result merged with nostalgia goggles.

[Inkidu]

Many games are easier now compared to their predecessors in large part because earlier games were pretty opaque. Zelda 2, for instance: huge world, almost nothing to help you figure out where you're supposed to go in it. That made it a lot harder than it needed to be, and not in a way that made it more fun. If the NPCs had given advice that actually made sense it would've been more sensible in that respect without affecting the challenge of the gameplay at all.

Just getting used to how to play games is also a factor. When I go back and play old games for nostalgia...most of them aren't any harder than current-day games on the whole. Maybe they're more punishing - limited lives/continues, time limits that give you an immediate game over when they run out, etc. - but for the most part they aren't any harder to play. Their "fake difficulty" just operates differently than modern games.

The concept of "games today are way easier than they used to be" is a myth as far as I'm concerned, a combination of years of experience with gaming making games seem easier as a result merged with nostalgia goggles.

This, so much this.

[Changingsaint]

Many games are easier now compared to their predecessors in large part because earlier games were pretty opaque. Zelda 2, for instance: huge world, almost nothing to help you figure out where you're supposed to go in it. That made it a lot harder than it needed to be, and not in a way that made it more fun. If the NPCs had given advice that actually made sense it would've been more sensible in that respect without affecting the challenge of the gameplay at all.

Just getting used to how to play games is also a factor. When I go back and play old games for nostalgia...most of them aren't any harder than current-day games on the whole. Maybe they're more punishing - limited lives/continues, time limits that give you an immediate game over when they run out, etc. - but for the most part they aren't any harder to play. Their "fake difficulty" just operates differently than modern games.

The concept of "games today are way easier than they used to be" is a myth as far as I'm concerned, a combination of years of experience with gaming making games seem easier as a result merged with nostalgia goggles.

Pretty much going to agree with this. Anyone who can't find challenging or entertainingly difficult games in this current era isn't looking hard enough.

[Shouron]

Oh, don't get me wrong, I don't think 100% of them are easy, just the majority. Batman: Arkham Asylum and Arkham City, for example, are both very difficult games, in my opinion. The majority of games made today though seem to follow a trend "Look good, leave gameplay as an afterthought". Which constantly proves true everywhere I look, Ace Combat Assault Horizon, Armored Core 5, Burnout Paradise, Mirror's Edge, Alan Wake.. (games with generally low difficulty and bland game mechanics). ALL have examples of precisely what I mean. All of them seem to be more worried about how the game looks than how the game plays. Leaving many a fan either disappointed or just ashamed to have liked the game series in the first place.

Square Enix's Final Fantasy is another great example of just what I mean. I-III it was almost solely about the gameplay experience itself and was hard as hell, IV-VI it became a little more about the look of the game, easing the throttle on what made the games so difficult to play, still keeping the gameplay experience in-tact.. VII is where it began to take a huge turn. Going more for looks than gameplay, moderate difficulty level and an mildly interesting battle system, leaving fans disappointed or loving the game even more by stepping in another direction. VII-X same way, leaving a lot to be desired from every game as well as a lot to love about them.. Then XII goes almost completely on looks, becomes love it or hate it, and thus sends the game in its downspiral.

Another example would be a good chunk of FPS games on the market today. The games used to be all about the story, whether it be horror (FEAR, Doom, Quake, etc.), playing a war hero (Medal of Honor, Call of Duty, Halo), playing a role (Dead to Rights, Max Payne) or just being wacky and having fun. (Conker's Bad Fur Day) Now? It's a tacked on campaign that takes little effort and no time to play through, then to nothing but online gameplay with better graphics and new maps with each new installment. (Black Ops 2, Halo 4, etc.)

My point is more of a desire of what made games good in the first place and less of showing off the power of the system.

[GarthMarenghi]

Oh, don't get me wrong, I don't think 100% of them are easy, just the majority. Batman: Arkham Asylum and Arkham City, for example, are both very difficult games, in my opinion. The majority of games made today though seem to follow a trend "Look good, leave gameplay as an afterthought". Which constantly proves true everywhere I look, Ace Combat Assault Horizon, Armored Core 5, Burnout Paradise, Mirror's Edge, Alan Wake.. (games with generally low difficulty and bland game mechanics). ALL have examples of precisely what I mean. All of them seem to be more worried about how the game looks than how the game plays. Leaving many a fan either disappointed or just ashamed to have liked the game series in the first place.

Square Enix's Final Fantasy is another great example of just what I mean. I-III it was almost solely about the gameplay experience itself and was hard as hell, IV-VI it became a little more about the look of the game, easing the throttle on what made the games so difficult to play, still keeping the gameplay experience in-tact.. VII is where it began to take a huge turn. Going more for looks than gameplay, moderate difficulty level and an mildly interesting battle system, leaving fans disappointed or loving the game even more by stepping in another direction. VII-X same way, leaving a lot to be desired from every game as well as a lot to love about them.. Then XII goes almost completely on looks, becomes love it or hate it, and thus sends the game in its downspiral.

Another example would be a good chunk of FPS games on the market today. The games used to be all about the story, whether it be horror (FEAR, Doom, Quake, etc.), playing a war hero (Medal of Honor, Call of Duty, Halo), playing a role (Dead to Rights, Max Payne) or just being wacky and having fun. (Conker's Bad Fur Day) Now? It's a tacked on campaign that takes little effort and no time to play through, then to nothing but online gameplay with better graphics and new maps with each new installment. (Black Ops 2, Halo 4, etc.)

My point is more of a desire of what made games good in the first place and less of showing off the power of the system.

My thoughts are very different on this.
I think FPS's have never been about story and mainly focused on level design/fun, I can remember the game Doom, FEAR and Quake having either an extremely weak story or none at all but nobody cared because it was all about the gameplay, Quake was the extremely fast paced multiplayer experience that lots of people loved, Doom/wolfenstein was the "shoot anything that moves and get to the exit" kind of game that pretty much defined the genre for years to come all focusing on level design and graphics whilst having next to no story at all, FEAR was a fun game with the slow motion physics but again the story was weak and hardly worth following so I'd say the main focus of it was pure gameplay. Max Payne had a good story but that was a third person shooter, the war games were all generic story wise and you could easily get them all confused with each other.
There's a few good FPS's with a story like Red Faction 1, the stalker series and Half life but they're very few and far between.

You talk about the graphics of FF games instead of their story which is what those games were all about, the very early FF's 1-3/4 had barely any story or character development at all but 6 was pretty much the starting point of where they realised a great plot and characters were the way to go since so many people fell in love with that game. I admit that 10 was very graphics heavy but gameplay/story wise it wasn't that bad, 12 and onwards I can't really say.
It just seems to me like you're looking for story in games that never had one (FPS Games) then focusing purely on graphics in games that focus on story (RPG's).

Difficulty wise the early FF's were very easily beaten since you could use the same spell/tactic over and over and win in a few hours, I'd say the modern day Final Fantasy's are more difficult or at least a lot more grindy/tactical but Final Fantasy Tactics on PS1 is a very difficult game compared to the remake on DS. FPS's difficulty comes from either making all the enemies bullet sponges or the player can take very few hits before dying so it's pretty hard to tell if they've gotten easier or harder. I found the Arkham games very easy since you just hit a single button to counter everything, and you just dodge every move with ease to chain combo's.

[Shouron]

My thoughts are very different on this.
I think FPS's have never been about story and mainly focused on level design/fun, I can remember the game Doom, FEAR and Quake having either an extremely weak story or none at all but nobody cared because it was all about the gameplay, Quake was the extremely fast paced multiplayer experience that lots of people loved, Doom/wolfenstein was the "shoot anything that moves and get to the exit" kind of game that pretty much defined the genre for years to come all focusing on level design and graphics whilst having next to no story at all, FEAR was a fun game with the slow motion physics but again the story was weak and hardly worth following so I'd say the main focus of it was pure gameplay. Max Payne had a good story but that was a third person shooter, the war games were all generic story wise and you could easily get them all confused with each other.
There's a few good FPS's with a story like Red Faction 1, the stalker series and Half life but they're very few and far between.

You talk about the graphics of FF games instead of their story which is what those games were all about, the very early FF's 1-3/4 had barely any story or character development at all but 6 was pretty much the starting point of where they realised a great plot and characters were the way to go since so many people fell in love with that game. I admit that 10 was very graphics heavy but gameplay/story wise it wasn't that bad, 12 and onwards I can't really say.
It just seems to me like you're looking for story in games that never had one (FPS Games) then focusing purely on graphics in games that focus on story (RPG's).

Difficulty wise the early FF's were very easily beaten since you could use the same spell/tactic over and over and win in a few hours, I'd say the modern day Final Fantasy's are more difficult or at least a lot more grindy/tactical but Final Fantasy Tactics on PS1 is a very difficult game compared to the remake on DS. FPS's difficulty comes from either making all the enemies bullet sponges or the player can take very few hits before dying so it's pretty hard to tell if they've gotten easier or harder. I found the Arkham games very easy since you just hit a single button to counter everything, and you just dodge every move with ease to chain combo's.

Haha, gotta admit you have a very good points. I'm more into games for story above mostly all else. Give me a tolerable system and I'll play the game with no issues. Final Fantasy is actually one of my favorite game series but I can see where people who don't like the games find the game to be.. stupid (for lack of better words). I think there are far superior games out there that managed a balance of both. Star Ocean, most of the Tales series, any version of Lunar (Legends, Silver Star Harmony) Final Fantasy shouldn't give up what made it good in the first place, but at the same time shouldn't be trying so hard at doing that that it makes the gameplay unbearable. People often complain the later versions of FF are too linear and where that, to me, is a stupid reason to hate a game... I also have to agree. XIII is just a hallway, and the battles are basically watching a movie play out. The leveling system to me is just a tacked on idea to give people some control over what the characters do. Leaving free-roam to the last 20% of the game where it no longer matters if you backtrack or not unless you are aiming for 100% or something.

I meant more so on the whole platforming and not using the map to find the riddler's challenges kinda thing for Batman. That was the challenge, for me, as I have never been that into Batman so I don't know the story or even most of the characters. Tactics A1: GoTR was actually pretty easy once you got the hang of it though I did love the game.

I'm biased on games based on how much effort was put into the game mechanics and the story rather than graphics and gimmicks (online play or DLC). I appreciate people taking the time to making the game itself good, rather than leaving the game's quality in the hands of the graphics designers. For example, though I think Assault Horizon is crap overall.. It was taking a spin into another direction which I respect considering it was well-done for what it was trying to do.

[Shjade]

Square Enix's Final Fantasy is another great example of just what I mean. I-III it was almost solely about the gameplay experience itself and was hard as hell, IV-VI it became a little more about the look of the game, easing the throttle on what made the games so difficult to play, still keeping the gameplay experience in-tact.. VII is where it began to take a huge turn. Going more for looks than gameplay, moderate difficulty level and an mildly interesting battle system, leaving fans disappointed or loving the game even more by stepping in another direction.

Another example would be a good chunk of FPS games on the market today. The games used to be all about the story, whether it be horror (FEAR, Doom, Quake, etc.), playing a war hero (Medal of Honor, Call of Duty, Halo), playing a role (Dead to Rights, Max Payne) or just being wacky and having fun. (Conker's Bad Fur Day) Now? It's a tacked on campaign that takes little effort and no time to play through, then to nothing but online gameplay with better graphics and new maps with each new installment. (Black Ops 2, Halo 4, etc.)

First the second part: what? Doom and Quake were all about the story?

Aha. Ahaha. Ahahahaha. AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

But seriously no. Doom was all about bunnyhopping down corridors, Quake was all about grenade all the things, Wolf3D was all about grind your face down every wall spamming the open door key in the hopes of finding secret treasure. The story was chunks of text between campaigns that players might read, but didn't really need because busy shooting nazi zombies, demons and other demons. And how the heck are you calling Halo an example of "old school" games? It was one of the spearheads for the current generation of shooters.

As for the other bit, you brought up an example that pretty perfectly demonstrates my earlier point: compare the accessibility of FF1 to that of FF7. One gives you absolutely no idea what you're doing or how to do it, where to start, what to start with, what works and what won't, basically any kind of help with anything at all. Approaching that game cold without much/any previous experience with games, you're very likely to die a lot not because the game is just so terribly hard, but because it isn't giving you any hints as to what you're supposed to do to not die. It's opaque. That's not a "hard game," that's a "user unfriendly" game. That's like someone saying Chess is impossible because no one explained the rules to them - it's not exactly a fair assessment of the game.

FF7, on the other hand? You start out with a few levels, some basic spells and non-spell abilities, weak enemies and a bit of a walkthrough level, though with a boss that can easily destroy you if you don't pay attention to its pattern (and ignore the mistranslated "hint" from Barrett about when to attack it). It gives you a reasonable challenge and the tools to overcome it, basic examples of the game's overall mechanics, and then lets you try it all out before throwing anything really deadly at your face. There's also a straight up "I have no idea how this works please halp" tutorial guy not too much farther into the game, something FF1 lacks as far as I know. Granted most of the combat mechanics are simpler in FF1 by comparison, but some clarification would've been nice all the same, particularly with regard to the magic system.

Once those mechanical and design problems are taken out of the equation? I don't think FF1 is all that much harder than FF7, if at all. If you know what you're doing you can certainly breeze through it faster, you can min/max your party in ways that are effectively impossible in 7 without an enormous grind, the boss fights are easier (mostly made challenging by the attrition of fighting your way down to them)... I'd be hard pressed to call it a harder game just judging by the game's challenges, rather than the challenges of its presentation.

[Changingsaint]

As far as modern FPS games with story... Borderlands 2 (for good or ill), Bulletstorm, Killzone series, Farcry 3, Bioshock infinite, and i'll say that while Specops: The Line is not an FPS, its a shooter game with a HELL of a story to tell.

Cod, battlefield are meant to be primarily multiplayer games with a single player campaign for fun thats often rather short. You're not meant to play those for story at all.

Doom if I recall had a story of 'Be space marine, kill aliens on mars. get on earth - they killed your bunny, go kill more!'. Which isn't that deep.

Final fantasy games have always been pretty easy for the most part, with some having downright abusable mechanics. Good modern JRPG's with difficulty are games like Nier (With one of the best JRPG story/casts i've seen in years), Shin Megami tensei 4, Devil Survivor Overclocked, Ys Origins, Radiant Historia, Etrian Odyssey series.

[Shouron]

First the second part: what? Doom and Quake were all about the story?

Aha. Ahaha. Ahahahaha. AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

But seriously no. Doom was all about bunnyhopping down corridors, Quake was all about grenade all the things, Wolf3D was all about grind your face down every wall spamming the open door key in the hopes of finding secret treasure. The story was chunks of text between campaigns that players might read, but didn't really need because busy shooting nazi zombies, demons and other demons. And how the heck are you calling Halo an example of "old school" games? It was one of the spearheads for the current generation of shooters.

As for the other bit, you brought up an example that pretty perfectly demonstrates my earlier point: compare the accessibility of FF1 to that of FF7. One gives you absolutely no idea what you're doing or how to do it, where to start, what to start with, what works and what won't, basically any kind of help with anything at all. Approaching that game cold without much/any previous experience with games, you're very likely to die a lot not because the game is just so terribly hard, but because it isn't giving you any hints as to what you're supposed to do to not die. It's opaque. That's not a "hard game," that's a "user unfriendly" game. That's like someone saying Chess is impossible because no one explained the rules to them - it's not exactly a fair assessment of the game.

FF7, on the other hand? You start out with a few levels, some basic spells and non-spell abilities, weak enemies and a bit of a walkthrough level, though with a boss that can easily destroy you if you don't pay attention to its pattern (and ignore the mistranslated "hint" from Barrett about when to attack it). It gives you a reasonable challenge and the tools to overcome it, basic examples of the game's overall mechanics, and then lets you try it all out before throwing anything really deadly at your face. There's also a straight up "I have no idea how this works please halp" tutorial guy not too much farther into the game, something FF1 lacks as far as I know. Granted most of the combat mechanics are simpler in FF1 by comparison, but some clarification would've been nice all the same, particularly with regard to the magic system.

Once those mechanical and design problems are taken out of the equation? I don't think FF1 is all that much harder than FF7, if at all. If you know what you're doing you can certainly breeze through it faster, you can min/max your party in ways that are effectively impossible in 7 without an enormous grind, the boss fights are easier (mostly made challenging by the attrition of fighting your way down to them)... I'd be hard pressed to call it a harder game just judging by the game's challenges, rather than the challenges of its presentation.

As far as modern FPS games with story... Borderlands 2 (for good or ill), Bulletstorm, Killzone series, Farcry 3, Bioshock infinite, and i'll say that while Specops: The Line is not an FPS, its a shooter game with a HELL of a story to tell.

Cod, battlefield are meant to be primarily multiplayer games with a single player campaign for fun thats often rather short. You're not meant to play those for story at all.

Doom if I recall had a story of 'Be space marine, kill aliens on mars. get on earth - they killed your bunny, go kill more!'. Which isn't that deep.

Final fantasy games have always been pretty easy for the most part, with some having downright abusable mechanics. Good modern JRPG's with difficulty are games like Nier (With one of the best JRPG story/casts i've seen in years), Shin Megami tensei 4, Devil Survivor Overclocked, Ys Origins, Radiant Historia, Etrian Odyssey series.

And what's the point on continuing a conversation with someone who is so adamant on their point? Apparently, there's going to be something wrong with everything I say according to what I'm reading here.

I was simply stating my opinion, not looking to start an argument with someone. Point was that games aren't what they used to be and it's both a bad and a good thing. That being said, I'm done here. Since I am so apparently out of touch with what games really are I'll leave you guys to it.

[Skynet]

I'm loving the shit out of Saints Row 4.  Got 100% of virtual Steelport hacked in less than a week!

[bowbeforeyourqueen]

I just go done playing Deadpool I liked it but it had some flaws. 

[Charles]

Has anyone played the Wolf among us yet? I think It's setting up to be a great game, with how it plays and the story seems superb so far. Actually really surprised telltale made such a good game after Jurassic Park.

[GarthMarenghi]

Has anyone played the Wolf among us yet? I think It's setting up to be a great game, with how it plays and the story seems superb so far. Actually really surprised telltale made such a good game after Jurassic Park.

I've played it/completed it, the characters are pretty good and story is quite interesting but it's just a few hours long and you just have a few quick time events/text choices and it's over, it's ok for what it is but since they've split it into 5/6 parts once you've completed it all you can do is wait for next episode to see how your choices effect things in it.

[Charles]

I've played it/completed it, the characters are pretty good and story is quite interesting but it's just a few hours long and you just have a few quick time events/text choices and it's over, it's OK for what it is but since they've split it into 5/6 parts once you've completed it all you can do is wait for next episode to see how your choices effect things in it.

Yeah, Hopefully they'll live up to the ''Everything you do affects everything else''. So far they have, and it doesn't look like therye going to stop since the first episode has a lot of different possibilities that I've seen.

[Shjade]

They're setting it up the same way they did the Walking Dead adventure set, looks like.

I'm pretty tempted...except that adventure games of this type bore me to tears, which makes it hard to play.

[Dallas]

Dynasty Warriors 8, Dragon's Dogma, Dead or Alive 5 & Skyrim, lately.

[Callie Del Noire]

I'm loving the shit out of Saints Row 4.  Got 100% of virtual Steelport hacked in less than a week!

Nothing like the Nuke option from way up high. Boom everything for blocks dies n

[GarthMarenghi]

Played The Guided Fate Paradox, it's a really fun game so far and has a system similar to Z.H.P but with loads of improvements.
And with it being a Nippon Ichi game I'm bound to spend 100+ hours on it without getting bored. 

[Chris Brady]

Played The Guided Fate Paradox, it's a really fun so far and has a system similar to Z.H.P but with loads of improvements.
And with it being a Nippon Ichi I'm bound to spend 100+ hours on it without getting bored. 

It's out?  Dammit, why am I so POOR???

[GarthMarenghi]

It's out?  Dammit, why am I so POOR???

It is, I also noticed I missed the word "game" out twice in my post which is just strange.

[Shjade]

It's out?  Dammit, why am I so POOR???

Lucky for you, Path of Exile is free. And it's not bad, for a Diablo 2 homage/clone/whatever.

[Tsenta]

My special edition of AC4 arrived Monday....oh how I love this game...except for the whale that continually has it out for my ship. >(