The last few games you beat and rate them III

[Papa Francouz]

Hollow Knight on Switch.

Holy shit. 10/10.

 

[aleshemsky83]

Nioh - Liked the environment and zones, thought the difficulty was decent for most non-bosses, found some of the bosses a bit too gimmicky. Likely rate it a 4/5

im on the ice princess and I might have to grind. Shes insanely difficult with tons of one shot moves.

 

[Nickmo82]

im on the ice princess and I might have to grind. Shes insanely difficult with tons of one shot moves.

Take a hint from the item pick ups all over the floor.

 

[Frankie Spankie]

Vampyr - 8/10

I really enjoyed this game and feel like it will unfortunately fall into obscurity in gaming and soon be forgotten. It's a shame the vampire genre isn't used very often because I feel like you can make some really cool games with it. In Vampyr, you play the role of Dr Jonathan Reid who hates the monster he has become and dedicates his time to finding a cure for vampires. You travel through a well thought out story involving politics of vampires living in human society. Each person in the game has their own story, dialogue, and end (assuming you choose to drain them of their blood.) Every person you kill will make a district weaker and killing all humans in a district will cause everyone who survived to flee and never return, leaving that district in chaos ruled by vampires. The whole society aspect was great. As a doctor, you have to actually cure their illnesses to keep them alive and healthy humans can give you more XP when you kill them. Keeping everyone alive however will lead to the best ending because after all, you are a doctor.

The combat itself is similar to the Batman Arkham games. It's nothing great but it's serviceable. I certainly wouldn't call it bad as I've seen some people say but it's nothing special. Some of the abilities are really cool, my favorite was the ability that causes you to increase a victim's blood pressure until they explode (if they're a weaker enemy anyway, stronger enemies will survive after taking a lot of damage.) The boss battles were fun with some nice twists and strategies involved. The world is rather small and doesn't have any form of fast travel. Enemies will respawn all around the map and you'll have to deal with them multiple times just to progress through the story which feels rather tedious at times.

I was actually surprised at how well optimized the game was. The only bug I ran into was one conversation froze, restarting the game fixed it. Otherwise it ran like a charm. I beat it in about 20 hours while only doing a fair share of the side quests. I bet if I focused on doing all the side quests, it would have probably added another 5-10 hours of content. That being said, the story was really good. It's a very dialogue heavy game so if that's not your thing, you may want to think twice. Overall, it's a great RPG. They tried something different and if you hate the monotony of modern games feeling so repetitive, Vampyr might be up your alley. I definitely recommend it and think it's a great buy.

 

[Osprey]

I just finished Borderlands. It took me 9 years to get to it partly because I was put off by the comic book graphics, but I learned that you could disable the object outlines with a simple INI tweak in the PC version to make them more realistic, which paved the way for me giving it a chance.

I also put the game off because it didn't seem like a serious shooter or a serious RPG. I was very pleasantly surprised to discover that, serious or not, it's actually a very satisfying blend of the two. A lot of shooters incorporate some RPG elements and a lot of RPGs incorporate some shooter elements, but Borderlands is a unique 50/50 blend. It's the first time that I've ever been able to scratch my shooter itch and my loot itch at the same time, and the game has far more weapons than any shooter and far more loot than even Diablo II.

It's not perfect. The story is weak, the AI is predictable, nothing makes sense (like critters dropping guns and ammo crates in the middle of nowhere) and the game is a little easy (partly thanks to a virtually unlimited amount of ammo), among other things, but the core gameplay is so enjoyable that it makes up for all of it. I shouldn't have waited so long to play it.

 

[Zodiac]

Dark Souls Remastered (PC)

beat this game so many times. still awesome. 10/10.

 

[BigMac1212]

I beat Final Fantasy XV on the PS4. I do have spoilers, so I'll borrow a trend on my #DeviantART site and have Twilight Sparkle give you a fair warning:

Spoiler

If XV was Square-Enix's experiment of making the brand more Kingdom Hearts-like action RPG, then it's fairly successful. Granted, not all first adventures are going to be FFVII success. You can see the flaws in this outing. Maybe I'm more "old school," but being restricted to controlling Noctis (Noct for short) for most of the game seems a bit disheartening to me. Most of my gripes are more in the nitpicking type. It's a valant effort. I do love the choice idea (Mass Effect, anybody), the graphics are breathtaking (even though my TV is at 1080P), the original soundtrack is good, and being able to purchase previous soundtracks in the franchse and listen to them is a novel touch. (Not having ALL tracks and cutting some of them short (Dancing Mad being one of them) is a bit harsh.) It's a nice effort. I would like to see this forumla refined some more.

8.1/10

 

[Blitzkrug]

Finally managed to beat the original Crash Bandicoot via the n.sane trilogy and uh...that game does not pull punches.

The biggest issues with me were definitely the screwy hitboxes. Multiple times i jumped on those stupid turtles dead center and i somehow still took a hit. That, and the depth perception. Some of those jumps in the temple levels are way harder to land than you'd think. Hitboxes definitely play a bigger role in those stupid bridge/dark levels. Fumbling in the dark, which by all accounts isn't an awful level in the original becomes an enormous pain in the ass since half the level is spent trying to land on those thin concrete slabs/or the tiny planks of wood on the bridge levels. Of course you can't use the ropes since the screwy hitboxes make it much more tenious to get on them to begin with.

All in all, still a solid game. Beautifully done remaster in terms of the graphics and music. 7.5/10

 

[Do Make Say Think]

I just finished Borderlands. It took me 9 years to get to it partly because I was put off by the comic book graphics, but I learned that you could disable the object outlines with a simple INI tweak in the PC version to make them more realistic, which paved the way for me giving it a chance.

I also put the game off because it didn't seem like a serious shooter or a serious RPG. I was very pleasantly surprised to discover that, serious or not, it's actually a very satisfying blend of the two. A lot of shooters incorporate some RPG elements and a lot of RPGs incorporate some shooter elements, but Borderlands is a unique 50/50 blend. It's the first time that I've ever been able to scratch my shooter itch and my loot itch at the same time, and the game has far more weapons than any shooter and far more loot than even Diablo II.

It's not perfect. The story is weak, the AI is predictable, nothing makes sense (like critters dropping guns and ammo crates in the middle of nowhere) and the game is a little easy (partly thanks to a virtually unlimited amount of ammo), among other things, but the core gameplay is so enjoyable that it makes up for all of it. I should've waited so long to play it.

I really really like the second game. It's just like the first but better everything.

As far as finishing a game

God of War - PS4

Took me a long time to get used to combat but once it clicks it's pretty sweet. Fun game, good story and insane graphics. I also have to admit that some of the moments where Kratos is funny are really great

"Reflect longer" still has me laughing days after I heard it.

8/10

 

[JadedLeaf]

After literally years of picking it up and getting fed up with it, something finally clicked and I managed to beat Dark Souls 1. I bought the remastered version now so just so I didn't need to mod the game as much to make it look better. Not having nearly as much fun with Dark Souls 2 so far though. Something about the mechanics seem off after spending 50 some off hours in the first game. I'm tempted to skip it and just go into the 3rd one but there's just something about Dark Souls games that turns me into a lore addict.

 

[GlassesJacketShirt]

After literally years of picking it up and getting fed up with it, something finally clicked and I managed to beat Dark Souls 1. I bought the remastered version now so just so I didn't need to mod the game as much to make it look better. Not having nearly as much fun with Dark Souls 2 so far though. Something about the mechanics seem off after spending 50 some off hours in the first game. I'm tempted to skip it and just go into the 3rd one but there's just something about Dark Souls games that turns me into a lore addict.

Dark Souls II definitely plays different from DSI and III. III feels like a natural evolution of the first entry, only with faster/flashier combat and simplified upgrade systems. The biggest hurdle II is the hit boxes, which are now tied to your ADP attribute. I believe you need to upgrade it until you get to 105 Agility in order to have the same number of invincibility frames as DSI, and that makes all the difference. Combat also regularly puts you in situations where going 1-on-1 or spacing yourself is nigh impossible. And to top it all off, the quantity over quality is the motto for the bosses.

The DLC levels are fantastic though.

 

[JadedLeaf]

Dark Souls II definitely plays different from DSI and III. III feels like a natural evolution of the first entry, only with faster/flashier combat and simplified upgrade systems. The biggest hurdle II is the hit boxes, which are now tied to your ADP attribute. I believe you need to upgrade it until you get to 105 Agility in order to have the same number of invincibility frames as DSI, and that makes all the difference. Combat also regularly puts you in situations where going 1-on-1 or spacing yourself is nigh impossible. And to top it all off, the quantity over quality is the motto for the bosses.

The DLC levels are fantastic though.

Oh it's all about the agility in this game? I noticed the weight/roll system seems way different too. In DS1 I used to stay just under 50% weight in order maintain a "medium" roll. It seems a lot easier to get stun-locked on the 2nd game as well. The enemy placement seems cheap compared to the first one as well. You got ganked a few times in the first one but so far I've noticed almost every room/area has one guy in plain view but as soon as you enter the room you have 2 or 3 more guys hidden waiting to ambush you.

It's still a good game but feel so different then DS1

 

[GlassesJacketShirt]

Oh it's all about the agility in this game? I noticed the weight/roll system seems way different too. In DS1 I used to stay just under 50% weight in order maintain a "medium" roll. It seems a lot easier to get stun-locked on the 2nd game as well. The enemy placement seems cheap compared to the first one as well. You got ganked a few times in the first one but so far I've noticed almost every room/area has one guy in plain view but as soon as you enter the room you have 2 or 3 more guys hidden waiting to ambush you.

It's still a good game but feel so different then DS1

It's definitely the cheapest of the three games in terms of PvE, though it is pretty good with PvP.

But yeah, the rolling system is complicated here. The only thing that affects roll speed is overall weight, so the agility stat seems useless at first (and why many first time goers never upgraded ADP). In other words, rolling animation speed stays consistent with Dark Souls I in its relation to encumbrance.

What the game does not tell you is that the number of invincibility frames provided during the roll animation is no longer static like it is in the other games. Agility determines the number of frames in which your character can avoid damage during a roll, which is a weird creative decision to say the least.

Making things even more complicated is the Poise stat, which also has to be upgraded by spending souls into the ADP attribute as well. Other Dark Souls games use the armor itself to determine your ability to take punishment and defend, but you actually need to upgrade the stat yourself as well as taking armor into account in DSII.

Getting your ADP high enough will help make the game feel more at home, even if the combat feels less weighty (the hit response in particular feels muted). Oh, and keep in mind that if you defeat enemies in an area enough times, the enemies will disappear for good. Might be needed when you get to, say, the Iron Keep, though it is grindy as a result.

 

[aleshemsky83]

Dark Souls II definitely plays different from DSI and III. III feels like a natural evolution of the first entry, only with faster/flashier combat and simplified upgrade systems. The biggest hurdle II is the hit boxes, which are now tied to your ADP attribute. I believe you need to upgrade it until you get to 105 Agility in order to have the same number of invincibility frames as DSI, and that makes all the difference. Combat also regularly puts you in situations where going 1-on-1 or spacing yourself is nigh impossible. And to top it all off, the quantity over quality is the motto for the bosses.

The DLC levels are fantastic though.

I have to be honest I'm not a fan of dark souls 2 at all.

I'm one of the few people where dark souls 2 was the last dark souls I played. I found either the bosses were mind numbingly easy (base game) or insanely difficult (dlc).

Also I really don't know what they were thinking with iron keep. Apparently the aggro range isn't so ridiculous in the original so I don't know why they made it like that in SotFS. Anyone who played it knows how bad it sucks. You essentially have to kill every enemy in the area to even have a chance at fighting the smelter demon (since you can be hit while passing through fog doors in this game (can't remember if you could in 1).

I've heard theories that it's for lore reasons and that the smelter demon has alonnes soul in it and they're guarding him, but I seriously doubt that and even then it makes no sense that they can see you through walls.

Also I really hate the analog controls since I played Bloodborne and DS3 first. It honestly feels like 8 directional N64 controls.

But if you are a dark souls fan, I would play it since even though I'm being super negative, it is an alright game at the very least outside of iron keep.

Edit: I should be clear though I don't particularly like DS1 either, but I didn't have as much of an issue with it

 

[flyingkiwi]

Is it fair to judge a game by the goings on at its developer since release?

Absolutely not, but man was my joy sucked out of my latest play through of Portal 2 with all of the crap going on at Valve, and knowing that its 3 writers all left the company last year.

 

[GlassesJacketShirt]

I have to be honest I'm not a fan of dark souls 2 at all.

I'm one of the few people where dark souls 2 was the last dark souls I played. I found either the bosses were mind numbingly easy (base game) or insanely difficult (dlc).

Also I really don't know what they were thinking with iron keep. Apparently the aggro range isn't so ridiculous in the original so I don't know why they made it like that in SotFS. Anyone who played it knows how bad it sucks. You essentially have to kill every enemy in the area to even have a chance at fighting the smelter demon (since you can be hit while passing through fog doors in this game (can't remember if you could in 1).

I've heard theories that it's for lore reasons and that the smelter demon has alonnes soul in it and they're guarding him, but I seriously doubt that and even then it makes no sense that they can see you through walls.

Also I really hate the analog controls since I played Bloodborne and DS3 first. It honestly feels like 8 directional N64 controls.

But if you are a dark souls fan, I would play it since even though I'm being super negative, it is an alright game at the very least outside of iron keep.

Edit: I should be clear though I don't particularly like DS1 either, but I didn't have as much of an issue with it

I hear ye. There are some things it does better than the other games in the series: variety of weapons and fighting styles, variety of levels and aesthetics, and it is the only game in the series to offer a true NG+ experience. DLC had some terrific level design (outside of the optional bosses, those runthroughs are a disgrace). It has the best bang for your buck in terms of sheer content. Also of note is the character of Aldia, who shifted a ton of our understanding of the universe's lore.

On the negative side, the world's layout feels underdeveloped, hit response is weak, the bosses are sometimes an absolute joke, GANK CITY, and there's an awkwardness in movement the other game's don't have. It's one thing going from DSI to this, but once you play DSIII it feels especially noticeable.

 

[Frankie Spankie]

Golf Story - 9/10

I played a couple old school golf games as a kid on Genesis and this brought some nostalgia. The gameplay is great and has some amazing precision tools to help you along the way to make sure you're not guessing in shots like you were forced to do 20 years ago in golf games. The story was great following a guy going from amateur on his journey to go pro with plenty of humor mixed in. My only complaint is while it felt so good all the way throughout the game, they don't do a great job showing the slope on the greens. Especially since the later ones have different pitches in different areas but it only seems to show the slope for where you're standing. Overall though, it's still a great game and absolutely worth the $15 price tag.

 

[MetalheadPenguinsFan]

7/10

 

[Osprey]

Even the games that you play have skulls on the covers, MetalheadPenguinsFan!

This is one review that I actually agree with you on, though. Well, actually, I would rate it higher. It's one of the best adventure games ever made, IMO.

 

[PK Cronin]

I recently beat Wolfenstein Old Blood, which I'd give a 6/10. Fun at first, a bit repetitive, and too short.

 

[Blitzkrug]

Crash 3: Warped - 5/10

I'm a bit surprised people think this is the best in the series. The progression from Crash 1 to 2 was clear and very well done. 2 to 3 is just...why? It's like they ran out of ideas and just threw a bunch of crap together with no cohesion/logic behind it. So many gimmick levels, be it vehicle or chase levels, where's the platformer?

The vehicle/riding levels aren't well done either, at least in the remaster. The tiger feels heavy, the jetski controls like a shopping cart without a wheel, the motorcycle you need to start turning like a second and a half in advance to just to make it proper and the stupid underwater thing is too floaty and can't stay in place without moving. the plane levels are the only ones that feel alright. Junk.

The few platforming levels are alright though, but not nearly enough in number.

 

[Shareefruck]

Edit: wrong thread

 

[Unholy Diver]

Final Fantasy XV - 8/10

My first FF game so I have no previous experience to compare it to, but I thought it was a great looking and enjoyable game, kept me engaged throughout

 

[Lost Horizons]

Black Ops 3 7 out of 10

 

[Ceremony]

Lightning Returns: Final Fantasy XIII (PS3, 2014)

I've played four Final Fantasy games in my life. The three of this trilogy and the very first one, on the PSP. I got about a quarter of the way into it before my PSP stopped working, and this was in about 2012 so it's not like I could replace it. Perhaps if I'd assumed the numbers in the titles referred to a whole series I would've started with the first and then stopped after being unable to play any further, thus saving what must be close to 250 hours in the world of XIII.

I'm not sure if I want to sound as if I'm resentful at playing these games. If the first one was that bad I wouldn't have played the other two. But then perhaps "bad" isn't the right way of saying out. Outwith my comfort zone, so far in fact it's beyond any relative term of reasoning I can apply to it meaning I'm stuck playing something I don't understand for what amounts to no real justification beyond "I've started so I'll finish." But then as I play through XIII-2 and XIII-3 (they didn't call it that but I will) I find myself reminiscing fondly about various parts of the original, whether it's the characters, the music, the sound effects, the sense of logic to the battle mechanics...

As with the previous two games the story is a mystery. It's the end of the world so Lightning... er, comes back, at the whim of the god Bhunivelze. Bhunivelze is making a new world because something called Chaos has broken up the current version. He needs someone to collect as many souls of people as possible to be reborn in the new one. This is where Lightning comes in, as he promises her the return of her sister, Serah, if she collects enough souls.

Now that I type this out, isn't this basically what Scientology is? The good news in that sense is that (spoilers) Lightning kills Bhunivelze at the end - well, you win a boss fight against him and fifteen minutes of cutscenes later after all the characters from the first two games team up and take turns you do - and the world is reborn without God! The world then appears to be the present day, with Lightning getting off a train somewhere in France. I'm not sure I'd be quite happy if it turned out that eons ago people with magic and technology this advanced roamed the real planet we live on. I could make do with the terrible clothes and vicious monsters in exchange for stick thin girls with pastel hair colours and irrepressible personalities.

Above anything else though, the problem I had with the story was the complete lack of connection to either of the previous two games. XIII-2 was set in various locations over different periods of time. Some locations from the first game, some new. XIII-3 is set in just four that you can explore at will, none of which bear any resemblance to the old ones. One does by virtue of some things sticking out of the ground, but it doesn't make a difference. You take part in these world defining events in the first two games and they just seem forgotten about in the case of XIII to XIII-2, and not even there at all from XIII-2 to XIII-3. It feels like a story and a setting of a game was designed before anyone thought about the characters going into it.

XIII-2 saw the returning characters change in some way, roughly. They either aged or progressed somehow from the original. Fine. But in XIII-3, they're all back in their original forms. With exactly the same personalities and outfits. It's like the entire thing is some desperate nostalgia trip from someone unable to let go of their past. In many ways it is, but this sort of thing only counts as character development if you don't have to dwell on it the way Japanese storytelling does. The impact of a reveal is lost on the player when it comes 35 hours after they figured it out for themselves. When you realise what's going on you lose any ability to take the game in good faith, instead cynically mocking everything people say and do. You stop caring, effectively.

You save the souls that are the focus of the story by completing missions. Each of the four areas has a main quest and there are various side quests along the way for you to do. As the game is set at the end of the world however there's a time limit in place. You only have so many days to complete things in, although completing quests extends your available time. This might sound great in theory as it adds a sense of real consequence to what you're doing, but it really doesn't. What good is an open world game where you can effectively be punished for exploring? You can freeze time in miniscule increments, but you're only able to do this if you keep battling monsters to fill up your relevant stat. So if you want to explore then, you'll have to keep fighting the same fights over and over. This is boring, and it breaks up the sense of exploration that makes open world games good anyway.

You can't avoid making use of the time freezing powers. I used the official strategy guide and finished all the side quests but one, and I had about half a day left, technically. Even then it becomes like any huge open world RPG, you use fast travel to get around. Only in this case it's a necessity to actually be able to finish the game, rather than out of boredom. There's pretty much no criteria that I can measure this by to say it's a good design choice. There's a new game+ feature so I assume it's intended to be fully completed over multiple playthroughs and ascending difficulties (you can still become more powerful after completing the same quests, and you can only upgrade equipment in NG+) but there's still a weird conflict between it all for me. Aside from living in a modern world where efficiency is one of the foremost things I approach a new game with I don't see why completing everything over multiple playthroughs makes any sense. Bear in mind I took about 54 hours to finish.

The thing is, to 'complete' the game, or at least to kill all the monsters, you have to complete a majority of the side quests anyway to unlock a special area. Why then would you take multiple playthroughts to get efficient enough at finishing tasks only to have to do all of them in the one go in order to actually finish the game? Even then this optional dungeon is just more of what I was complaining about earlier with the story having no relation to the characters or series. It's a special place where God tests out new monsters to replace humans, making them all brainless and subservient! Where was this notion in my previous 200 hours of gameplay in this series? XIII had powerful beings who were in charge of everything, there wasn't any mention of any higher power. Then another Goddess was introduced in the XIII-2 and she just gets dismissed offhand in XIII-3. It feels like the more attention you pay, or at least I realise this as I think about all the different aspects of it, the less sense the game actually makes.

Perhaps the most telling feature that this game might have been fashioned together from various different elements is the central battle mechanic. In XIII and XIII-2 you had three members of a battle team in play at once and could change their set-up at will during battles, putting each character in one of six different roles with different types of attacks (physical, magic, healing, buff/debuff, you get the point). At various points in the first game this was quite dumb, because the AI was very deliberate and not as effective as a human could be picking abilities of their own rather than just pressing auto-attack. XIII-2 had Pokemon thrown into this mix. You collected monsters that you battled and could feed them stuff to make them stronger, fighting with them in your party instead of a third human member. This also worked, largely, although to me it limited any sense of variety because you could only have three active at the one time, so the game became a race of brute force. You pick the one that does the most damage and stick with it.

Apart from two of the open world segments in XIII-3, Lightning fights alone. You can have up to twelve abilities into a battle which you alternate between by changing what she's wearing. You can collect/buy various outfits in the game which give her different powers. You also collect the abilities along the way and slot these in, but the focus is on the outfits. My favourite was the one that made her look like a cat. Or one of the ones that was effectively strategically placed duct tape with some weird flourishing adornments. The back of the game box proclaims "Millions of customisation options let you play your way". I'm rolling my eyes so hard right now. Please.

But yeah, change outfits. And although you can create stock outfits to switch in and out pre-battle where necessary it's both pointless and frustrating. Although I played on easy I ploughed through nearly all of the game with what I set up after about two hours, and whenever you try to set up something specific you never seem able to add in all the abilities you feel you need. Add to this the counter-intuitiveness of trying to change between outfits in battle while managing three different cool down times and the incomprehensible upgrade system, you just ignore it. I know I played on easy so I might not be giving a completely accurate representation of the gameplay but if it's an option available to anyone starting it, aren't they going to take it? You can't change the difficulty once you start so if you play on Normal and you can't manage the battle system you're f***ed, basically.

I've been listening to the soundtrack to XIII on youtube as I've written this and it's a strange series to me. As my only non-Pokemon exposure to JRPGs I can't honestly say it's been a bad experience or something I'd rather I hadn't done. Large parts of all the games are good and unforgettable. Some are equally bad and unforgettable. XIII-3 doesn't really have anything I'd consider an essential aspect of the series though. Thinking back on all of it now, the only real redeeming feature here was any residual appreciation I had for the main character, who wasn't even present for the second game. Like I say, I'm not unhappy that I did it. I'm not even necessarily glad it's over, but I won't be jumping back in to the concept any time soon. I might change my desktop wallpaper, but that's about it.

(PS: The graphics for something from 2014 are appalling. The closing cutscenes look like they got the entire budget. There are no facial movements from any characters at all for the whole game prior to that)