bluefish's forum posts

#1 Posted by bluefish (687 posts) -

It's been a weird year for me. I've found it to be pretty underwhelming and almost nothing has stuck with me from the years biggest releases.

Witcher - Standard Fantasy games games have bored the pants off me for years, and it's hundreds of hours so to hell with that.

Bloodborn - Played 20 - 25 hours or so REALLY trying to like it. Definitely did not.

MGSV - Never cared about Metal Gear so I didn't play it. It does sound pretty cool but I'm pretty burned out on open world games as they tend to waste the fuck out of the players time and I'm just tired of it.

Basically, the most fun I've had this year was Rocket Legue and Helldivers (on any difficulty until the point where you start fighting enemy armour. Then it gets not fun...)

#2 Posted by bluefish (687 posts) -

I see "open world" as less as a genre and more of a narrative structure. You could strip the "open world" aspects of both MSG V and The Witcher 3 and have something closer to previous entries. It's just different, and might not appeal to everyone.

You're right in that it's not a genre, it's a narrative structure but it's more a content structure. An open world "action shooter" is the same genre as a linear "action shooter" but relevant or 'core' content is engaged with differently in terms of narrative and in terms of mechanically when you 'choose to do it'.

The mechanical and narrative moment of "go do the next step in world-ending conflict narrative" or "just fuck around and walk places for no reason" is not without value, I do like open world games quite a bit sometimes. But the issue is that that moment exists in every open world game, feels the damn same in every one and doesn't work into the narrative %99 of the time. Usually the choice of "fucking around for a bit" undercuts the tension of the narrative/setup and almost always involves a pleasant tedium of walking around for something casually content related to be found.

So yeah, in agreement, it doesn't appeal to everyone but I also think the current amount of them is unsustainable. As designed experiences, leaving so much of the play style up to the player leaves that player playing every open world game in a similar manner. I like games that go "now is a chill section" and "now is a tense section." Left to my own devices in a series of open world games, each falls into the same rhythm and it gets fuckin' boring.

#3 Posted by bluefish (687 posts) -

I'm at a point where as soon as a game says "AND IT'S OPEN WORLD" I disengage somewhat. This happened for the last couple of E3s' with stuff like Ghost Recon, MGSV, The Division, Witcher 3, Dragon Age, Mad Max, all of which I have moved to an open world.

Now I like open world games. Sleeping Dogs, Crackdown, Red Dead and Far Cry 3/4 are all games I've had a lot of fun with. But being open world dictates SO much of a games vibe and tempo and it makes those elements so similar across wildly different games that it does all start to run the same for me. Frankly, it's a lot of downtime and it's downtime not authored by someone smarter than me. It's just a bunch of neat stuff that you happen to bump into, and that's cool but it's not what I want all the time.

'Linear' became a dirty word last gen and I always thought that was bull shit. But I feel like it's swinging back slightly in some places. I crave solid single player campaigns so much that a lot of this year and last year I've been replaying stuff on 360 and PS3. HOLY CRAP those games are good! Stuff like Dead Space, Bioshock, Vanquish, Uncharted 2 Bayonetta, Mass Effect are fantastic and we have nothing this gen that can hold a candle to them in terms of liner single player experiences.

TLDR: I just finished replaying Bioshock Infinite (plus Burial at Sea for the first time) and and currently totally in love with really well done linear games. Open world is good but it homogenizes games which might otherwise feel unique.

#4 Edited by bluefish (687 posts) -


@mikelitoriz said:
@bluefish said:

4) Maybe in a European city next time? Their layouts are so much more interesting to drive than western cities imo.

Yes, because Europe isn't the west?

Oh shush, you know what I mean.

Poor phrasing, lets say west side of the Atlantic Ocean. Y'know, North America.

Fuck it, lets set it in a Canadian city. Maybe just the entire province of Prince Edward Island. That would be sweet! Some east coast Canada GTA action! I'm not even kidding, that would be so friggin' cool.

#5 Posted by bluefish (687 posts) -

@atwa said:

I feel like people say this EVERY year, also I expect a lot of on that list ot get delayed past 2016.

Agreed. Horizon: Zero Dawn is my most anticipated of that list (but man, what a bad title) and I really see it ending up in 2017. Stuff like Dishonored 2, Crackdown, Mass Effect and FFXV might very well join it.

But seriously, where the frack is No Man's Sky.

#6 Posted by bluefish (687 posts) -
@somejerk said:

New game: $60

Used game with a scratched disk and missing manual, also the case has gone through mud that happens to smell like poop and coconut: $50

Staying away from GS and improving your life: Priceless

I know you're making a joke but you know their recently released 'used' games are practically always in mint condition yeah?

I worked there for seven damn years.

Trust me.

I know.

#7 Posted by bluefish (687 posts) -

What a stupid, anti-consumer slant you put on this Austin. As someone who owns a large collection of games, I almost never trade stuff in. But I like owning a physical copy because I can lend a game to a friend, and if I ever decide to sell it, I can recoup some of my investment (or even make money down the road, as several games I own are now worth more than I paid for them). I can't do that with a digital download. And what happens when a service ends, or a game download is tied to a specific console like Nintendo has been doing?

I hope more retailers push back against digital code pack-ins. I feel like most of us would prefer having a physical copy for the reasons I stated, and this notion that all-digital is an inevitability is nauseating to me. (By the way, I can buy physical copies of games without ever leaving the house, often with free delivery, through Amazon thank you very much -- there is very little reason to go digital)

Thank you. As much all these game sites, they are very much in their 'digital only future' bubble without talking about the downsides nor about the fact that the big majority of console gamers prefer discs.

I like discs, I have good reasons for liking discs and I can't help but feel more than a little shunned by articles like this.

#8 Posted by bluefish (687 posts) -
@boozak said:

I'm still waiting for a Devil's Third quick look.

Amen to that.

After the last Bombcast I think we can all figure out they, collectively, would get MGS5 as a 5/5 game. So that covers all the important stuff so far.

#9 Edited by bluefish (687 posts) -

1) A combat model that doesn't rely on auto-aim so intense the game is reduced to 'RightTrigger-LeftTrigger-whack-a-mole"

1A) This means changing the range combat happens at. Larger enemy targets, less pinpoint-accurate weapons, more emphasis on moving around the space and flanking. I couldn't believe how shabby the combat systems were in such a terrific overall game.

2) Less driving. My god that city was huge to drive across 4000 times.

3) A female protagonist.

4) Maybe in a European city next time? Their layouts are so much more interesting to drive than western cities imo.

#10 Posted by bluefish (687 posts) -

A tonne of that money has to be phone games. Between that chunk and the Steam chunk it's still probably a mostly physical world on consoles.

Still though: I'm not looking forward to the digital future...