too much content.. you lost me thereIts true. One of the main imo stupid complaints when it comes to rebirth is that its indeed too much content. Bawwwww why is this open world so big, too many *compares to ubisoft checkpoints*, too many mini-games, the game is too long . People straight up complaining that its too much game...
Wait, are people seriously saying that FF7 Rebirth has too much content in it? I thought the complaint was that it's "only 1/3 of a game" and shouldn't be full priceThat's kind of an apples/oranges comparison.
Choose a lane, you serial whiners
Nah, Ninja Gaiden Black is up there as one of the GOAT pretty much through sheer gameplay alone.you are agreeing with me
Wait, are people seriously saying that FF7 Rebirth has too much content in it? I thought the complaint was that it's "only 1/3 of a game" and shouldn't be full priceWell this is also two separate complaints annoyingly enough. There is those that are upset that this wasn't a more 1:1 thing where the original game is covered in one new touch-up style remake. Square-enix did at least let everyone know right from the very beginning that this whole thing is going to be a way more ambitious project compared to a more simple super mario rpg, live a live or star ocean 2 r kind of thing. Imo there is no use constantly complaining about this because like I said this was made clear right from the very beginning way before the first part even came out. Its totally fine if one does not care for the twists square-enix took with this final fantasy 7 project. There does come a time though that after 4 years since the first part's release that if it isn't for someone they have to move the hell on. I hated saints row's 4's dumb-ass story......know what I did? I moved on, lol.
Choose a lane, you serial whiners
I don't get people complaining about tutorials. I can understand if they make things more confusing, I'm mainly talking about people saying there's too many or come up too often. What's wrong with teaching me the game?
Even worse when in the second half of the game you get a new mechanic, and a single screen will come up to say press these buttons to activate the ability, and people will say "I'm STILL in the tutorial?!" no, your not. To me the tutorial is the impossible to lose section that walks you through everything, and once you understand everything your free. A splash screen existing later on does not make everything before that still a tutorial.
I don't get people complaining about tutorials. I can understand if they make things more confusing, I'm mainly talking about people saying there's too many or come up too often. What's wrong with teaching me the game?I don't want to spend several hours being taught how to play the game before being allowed to actually play the game
Even worse when in the second half of the game you get a new mechanic, and a single screen will come up to say press these buttons to activate the ability, and people will say "I'm STILL in the tutorial?!" no, your not. To me the tutorial is the impossible to lose section that walks you through everything, and once you understand everything your free. A splash screen existing later on does not make everything before that still a tutorial.
Walking in a straight line isn't exploring. You're not understanding what a walking simulator isMost games people call walking simulator tend to be games that focus on exploration. People were calling Death Stranding walking simulator.
Video games that aren't 20+ hours being "too short".
Forced tutorials are the worst. It's one thing I hate about a lot of 3D Zeldas
A 2 hour game shouldn't cost $30.Then wait for a sale.
Then wait for a sale.
A two hour game shouldn't have 58 hours of filler, and that's a problem the consumer can't fix.
Then wait for a sale.
A two hour game shouldn't have 58 hours of filler, and that's a problem the consumer can't fix.
Interesting thing is, back then, games that could be completed within 2 to 5 hours costed about $40-50. They only felt longer because we kept dying and at the time it was pretty rare for games to have a save feature. Instead many of them had limited continues and when we didn't have any more continues after losing our last life, it was back to the beginning. Hell some games didn't even have continues.
As a matter of fact, I've read that some developers deliberately made games difficult so that kids wouldn't be able to just simply rent it and beat it over the weekend. Games like Contra, Battletoads and The Lion King are often used as examples when this is talked about.
Interesting thing is, back then, games that could be completed within 2 to 5 hours costed about $40-50. They only felt longer because we kept dying and at the time it was pretty rare for games to have a save feature. Instead many of them had limited continues and when we didn't have any more continues after losing our last life, it was back to the beginning. Hell some games didn't even have continues.True. Because unlike arcades where you kept feeding the game quarters to keep playing, you're not with console games, so to get their money's worth, some games became Nintendo Hard. (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NintendoHard)
As a matter of fact, I've read that some developers deliberately made games difficult so that kids wouldn't be able to just simply rent it and beat it over the weekend. Games like Contra, Battletoads and The Lion King are often used as examples when this is talked about.
When a game deviates from the formula of the previous game in a series. Big names that come to mind for me are FF, Resident Evil, and Battlefield. Idk when this popped up for FF. Resident Evil it was around RE4, with RE6 (loved that one) being a massive change. And the Battlefield community hates every after BF4 without even playingYou have to change up the formula or the series will stagnate and start dying. Although, some of the more hardcore/elitist fans would love this because it allows them have their precious series all to themselves.
"Hand-holding"
You have to change up the formula or the series will stagnate and start dying.Agreed, but almost none of these people see that. Especially in the Battlefield community. New post about a upcoming update, I see at least 20 posts about just remastering BF3 and/or BF4. No, don't do that, that'll hurt the series because they'll just want to repeat the formula of those two games, flaws and all
Although, some of the more hardcore/elitist fans would love this because it allows them have their precious series all to themselves.
When a game deviates from the formula of the previous game in a series. Big names that come to mind for me are FF, Resident Evil, and Battlefield. Idk when this popped up for FF. Resident Evil it was around RE4, with RE6 (loved that one) being a massive change. And the Battlefield community hates every after BF4 without even playing
You have to change up the formula or the series will stagnate and start dying. Although, some of the more hardcore/elitist fans would love this because it allows them have their precious series all to themselves.
Dying Light was such an awesome game and *spoilers*That's not QTEs' fault though. That's just the devs screwing up. This is like playing a game that replaced a legit final boss fight with a card game and screeching with fists raised to the heavens about card games.thefinal boss was just a QTE, such an anticlimactic ending.
It just feels significantly less engaging than actually playing the game.
"Hand holding" is why I dropped Ni No Kuni lol.Personally I dropped Ni No Kuni because it took somewhere around two hours before the first battle happened, and by that time I was getting really bored
Random battlesRandom battles are just constant, often unwelcome interruptions, especially in games that don't have the courtesy to suppress/disable/auto-win encounters that would otherwise not benefit the player, IE the game forces you to go back to the starting town and all the enemies along the way are at their respective levels from before, so you're obviously far beyond that and going to one-shot everything, why even open the battle screen?
QTEs
"Hand-holding"
Random battles are just constant, often unwelcome interruptions, especially in games that don't have the courtesy to suppress/disable/auto-win encounters that would otherwise not benefit the player, IE the game forces you to go back to the starting town and all the enemies along the way are at their respective levels from before, so you're obviously far beyond that and going to one-shot everything, why even open the battle screen?
QTEs are just pure tediousness. If I'm watching a cutscene, I just want to pay attention to what's going on with the story, not worry about pressing random buttons to make the cutscene keep playing. Imagine if movies worked like this, the character dangles from the ledge and if you don't mash OK on the remote, the movie just rewinds five seconds. I can't take arguments in favor of QTE to be in good faith unless the outcomes of the sequence can ACTUALLY change based on the results, which is very rare.
Hand-holding has its place, but it should be optional, always. Some players don't need it, and when you force it onto a player's experience who doesn't need it, it's just an annoyance at best and at worst hinders their experience.
Linearity. Since when was linearity a bad thing?Agree. I see people complaining that Lies of P is too linear, and that you can't get lost. How is being lost fun?
"It gets too repetitive "This is actually exactly what it means for a game to be too long. When you run out of new ideas and content, it's time for the game to end.
Mostly said about musou games. How many games dramatically change the way the game is played constantly? Some, but not the majority. Does an rpg with the same battle system the whole game get repetitive? Does a shooter get repetitive? Does a racing game get repetitive? It just feels weird to complain about a game continuing to do the game style it was built on over and over again.
I will never understand story complaints when the gameplay is goodThis!
a good story can elevate a game, but if a mechanically great game has a shit/no story I couldnt care less
random battles can be better, it's just they need to re-think what random battles actually mean for the game itself.I kinda wanna make a proper (not RPG Maker crap) RPG of my own at some point and one idea I had was basically making every battle a boss battle mechanics-wise. Doesn't mean every battle needs a story tie-in, it could be a random pack of monsters, nor that every battle needs to have the difficulty of a typical RPG boss, but just as in every battle is a fixed location, one-shot thing.
i think if they could untie progression from them that'd be something. like, instead of having these things be for the player to grind on, being a safety net and all that - undermining whatever challenge they could possibly have - make them strictly an obstacle.
also if they're a bit more rare they can be a bit more challenging.
I kinda wanna make a proper (not RPG Maker crap) RPG of my own at some point and one idea I had was basically making every battle a boss battle mechanics-wise. Doesn't mean every battle needs a story tie-in, it could be a random pack of monsters, nor that every battle needs to have the difficulty of a typical RPG boss, but just as in every battle is a fixed location, one-shot thing.
Linearity. Since when was linearity a bad thing?