I would argue that the only two games to come out in recent time that have been worth playing on day one are Borderlands 2 and Diablo 2. BL2 because it basically is a multiplayer game, and Diablo 2 because it burned fast and bright and then died off.
Diablo 2's fadeout is exactly why one should wait. Get the cheap single-player game later and play it one gloomy weekend. ;^)
As for Borderlands 2, personally I see no reason to ever buy it. One had too many flaws for me to really enjoy it enough.
BL2 ain't bad. They cleared up a lot of the problems that I had with the first one. At the end of the day, though, it's a random gun simulator. But the shooting is fun and feels good, and the enemies are diverse, the game is colorful, and the writing isn't terrible. I lost it when the main villain called you with his mouth full and interrupted things by saying "Hey buddy -- oh man, these pretzels suck -- what's up? I just bought a horse. Made of diamonds."
Generally I agree with you though. I didn't buy D2 and probably never will. I did buy BL2, despite playing it almost entirely on single player. My game buying decisions are not rational. Not even a little bit. Hell, I bought something like 10 copies of Terraria.
The problem I'm having with BL2 is that they nerfed the fuck out of the player character. Borderlands isn't meant to be a deep or even particularly challenging experience. It's pure entertainment, like a Marvel movie. You don't go to a Marvel movie expecting genre-defining cinema and you don't play Borderlands expecting a deep experience. It's a bullet spammer with loot porn.
BL2 tries to take itself a little too seriously and tones down the ludicrously powerful player characters from the first game, and in doing so, removes a LOT of the appeal. The writing and comedy help salvage this but I'm not sure yet whether it's a successful operation.
The problem I'm having with BL2 is that they nerfed the fuck out of the player character. Borderlands isn't meant to be a deep or even particularly challenging experience. It's pure entertainment, like a Marvel movie. You don't go to a Marvel movie expecting genre-defining cinema and you don't play Borderlands expecting a deep experience. It's a bullet spammer with loot porn.
BL2 tries to take itself a little too seriously and tones down the ludicrously powerful player characters from the first game, and in doing so, removes a LOT of the appeal. The writing and comedy help salvage this but I'm not sure yet whether it's a successful operation.
Really? I've not had that problem at all. My PC has only died a handful of times, and that is only when I'm being incredibly stupid.
The problem I'm having with BL2 is that they nerfed the fuck out of the player character. Borderlands isn't meant to be a deep or even particularly challenging experience. It's pure entertainment, like a Marvel movie. You don't go to a Marvel movie expecting genre-defining cinema and you don't play Borderlands expecting a deep experience. It's a bullet spammer with loot porn.
You have it backwards. I don't expect genre-defining cinema/deep challenging experience, so I don't go at all.
The problem I'm having with BL2 is that they nerfed the fuck out of the player character. Borderlands isn't meant to be a deep or even particularly challenging experience. It's pure entertainment, like a Marvel movie. You don't go to a Marvel movie expecting genre-defining cinema and you don't play Borderlands expecting a deep experience. It's a bullet spammer with loot porn.
You have it backwards. I don't expect genre-defining cinema/deep challenging experience, so I don't go at all.
Your loss. I'm OK with being pandered to sometimes. There's a difference between "slumming" with a good chunk o' brain porn, and being unable to distinguish brain porn from a quality product.
The problem I'm having with BL2 is that they nerfed the fuck out of the player character. Borderlands isn't meant to be a deep or even particularly challenging experience. It's pure entertainment, like a Marvel movie. You don't go to a Marvel movie expecting genre-defining cinema and you don't play Borderlands expecting a deep experience. It's a bullet spammer with loot porn.
BL2 tries to take itself a little too seriously and tones down the ludicrously powerful player characters from the first game, and in doing so, removes a LOT of the appeal. The writing and comedy help salvage this but I'm not sure yet whether it's a successful operation.
Really? I've not had that problem at all. My PC has only died a handful of times, and that is only when I'm being incredibly stupid.
I played almost exclusively Siren in BL1 and I'm finding my PC way, way, WAY more vulnerable in BL2 regardless of character class.
Personally I like that it's a little more difficult. I'm liking the second playthrough of BL2 a lot more than BL1 (which I never played through more than once ever). My only problem is the numeric scaling is getting wacky at the top end. Guns that were fine at 200-300 points of damage have been replaced with nearly identical guns doing 2000-3000 points of damage. If you don't have properly leveled loot, you're inflicting disproportionate penalties on your time.
Siren may be broken again, but defensively instead of offensively this time around.
The thing that boggles my mind when Rym (moreso than Scott it seems) says I'm content playing the same three games for the next 30 years. I find it baffling that you can stand to do the same thing for (at least) ten years straight and not get incredibly bored with it. The LONGEST I ever played a game is probably DDR when I was younger but even then there was a point where I just had had enough and didn't really want to play it anymore.
I do agree that $50 seems absurd now for a game, which is one of the major reasons for me switching mostly to PC is that gaming is a lot cheaper. I'm hard pressed to get a game at $50-$60 anymore.
The thing that boggles my mind when Rym (moreso than Scott it seems) says I'm content playing the same three games for the next 30 years. I find it baffling that you can stand to do the same thing for (at least) ten years straight and not get incredibly bored with it. The LONGEST I ever played a game is probably DDR when I was younger but even then there was a point where I just had had enough and didn't really want to play it anymore.
On the one hand, yes that is crazy. I play lots and lots of games, even stupid ones.
However, there comes a point where you realize that there aren't really that many games. You may think that Stratego and Rock, Paper, Scissors are different games, but they aren't. And in that sense, you may as well just pick the best one and play that forever.
Yeah I won't deny that many games are very much the same. All first person shooters you do the same thing, all platformers you do the same thing. Sleeping dogs is GTA with a brawler attached, but the thing is that the aesthetic and story and some of the mechanics are different enough that I enjoy playing it. Maybe I only play it because I want more GTA but I can only go through the same experience for so long, the same reason I will only read one Fire and Ice book is that I just don't really care anymore. I want to experience something new.
It does sound like you guys focus more on a game as being wholly about the mechanics (I'm also referring to video games exclusively here) which I have no issues with, but you could argue that many many board games are the exact same thing also with slightly different mechanics and different aesthetics, which I'm sure you are aware but you guys seem more accepting of board games over video games.
However, there comes a point where you realize that there aren't really that many games. You may think that Stratego and Rock, Paper, Scissors are different games, but they aren't. And in that sense, you may as well just pick the best one and play that forever.
That's true only if you look video games only as games. I try to see video games as they are, collection of different things. There is the game, story, visuals, sounds, style, feel, taste, smell and so on.
The visuals and storytelling aren't often very compelling in games, and follow the same patterns of sameness.
It does sound like you guys focus more on a game as being wholly about the mechanics (I'm also referring to video games exclusively here) which I have no issues with, but you could argue that many many board games are the exact same thing also with slightly different mechanics and different aesthetics, which I'm sure you are aware but you guys seem more accepting of board games over video games.
Who says we're more accepting of that in board games? We play a new board game until we understand it, and then we never bother with it again. We discard board games like skin cells. We also don't bother with games that don't pass a first muster examination of the rules.
For example, take Timbuktu. We played it exactly once. I solved it before the first round ended. Scott and Alex solved it before the second round ended. I won purely because I'd solved it one round earlier. There was literally nothing else the game had to offer. We never played it again.
The thing that boggles my mind when Rym (moreso than Scott it seems) says I'm content playing the same three games for the next 30 years.
No, I said in this case that I have the next 40 years to play X-Com whenever I like. No rush there.
More importantly, consider this. Once I understand the core of a game, I have a very small number of choices.
1. Be content with that understanding and never play it seriously again.
2. Attempt to master extremely far-order mastery techniques in order to become a world-class player.
Once I've experienced a game's fullness, and further identified what it would take to achieve true mastery, I either actually commit to achieving mastery or lose interest entirely.
DDR is fantastic exercise. It can't get old in the same way that running or biking can't get old.
CounterStrike, I could spend the next decade perfecting my skill and still have room for improvement. I long ago identified what skills it tests, and decided that I enjoy working toward master of those skills. It's a line of mastery I chose almost 20 years ago when Doom was released and I decided that I wanted to master FPSs.
RTSs, I understand just as well what skills they test and what it would take to master them. I chose instead to forego playing them to any substantial degree.
I won't be playing the same games 40 years from now. I'll be playing primarily two kinds of games:
1. Novel games
2. Games which test the skills I've invested so much into and wish to continue to do so with.
The visuals and storytelling aren't often very compelling in games
Great generalization.
But nonetheless true. Not just for games, but for all media.
Now, if a game has this, but lacks in all other elements, why is it even a game in the first place? If Portal hadn't been a great game first and foremost, no amount of clever story or interesting aesthetic would have caused me to play it.
"Games" like Gravity Bone are more like art installations. They are games, even by our own definitions, and are indeed driven primarily on aesthetic. However, games like this are extremely rare.
The visuals and storytelling aren't often very compelling in games, and follow the same patterns of sameness.
It does sound like you guys focus more on a game as being wholly about the mechanics (I'm also referring to video games exclusively here) which I have no issues with, but you could argue that many many board games are the exact same thing also with slightly different mechanics and different aesthetics, which I'm sure you are aware but you guys seem more accepting of board games over video games.
Who says we're more accepting of that in board games? We play a new board game until we understand it, and then we never bother with it again. We discard board games like skin cells. We also don't bother with games that don't pass a first muster examination of the rules.
For example, take Timbuktu. We played it exactly once. I solved it before the first round ended. Scott and Alex solved it before the second round ended. I won purely because I'd solved it one round earlier. There was literally nothing else the game had to offer. We never played it again.
Board games don't get special treatment from us.
From what I've gathered you buy a lot more board games than video games, which to me would imply that you are fine spending money on board games but not video games. I dunno the fact that you will wait until a game is $5 even if it is good is strange to me when you'll spend $40 on a board game that is good. Maybe because board games aren't really ever on sale?
I also completely disagree with your first statement, but to each his own. EDIT: Okay at least you admit that it would be an issue with all media, I'm fine with that.
From what I've gathered you buy a lot more board games than video games, which to me would imply that you are fine spending money on board games but not video games.
Nope. I play a lot of boardgames, but few are actually worth owning.
I dunno the fact that you will wait until a game is $5 even if it is good is strange to me when you'll spend $40 on a board game that is good. Maybe because board games aren't really ever on sale?
Board games are physical goods made in limited quantity: they rarely come down in price.
And this is precisely why I don't give two shits about game theory.
To each his own. I can not enjoy a game that does not engage me intellectually. I'm looking for challenge and mastery. This is LOOOONG before I discovered game theory. I've felt this way about games since... 1987?
As a small child, I HATED the random bullshit in most board games (which I played regularly). I played Monopoly by myself to try and solve it. When Rebel Assault came out, I recognized immediately that it was a shit, garbage, worthless game with a lot of pretty pictures and Star Wars tacked on top of it. I've recognized the severe disconnect between style and mechanics in games for almost as long as I've been alive.
Stories in games are fantastic! The problem is that too often the story is literally the only thing the game has going for it. When that happens, why waste your time with it? Why not just make it a movie or a novel?
A good game with a bad story is still a good game. A bad game with a good story is just a movie with quicktime events forced into it.
And this is precisely why I don't give two shits about game theory.
See, Scrym ruins things INTENTIONALLY with game theory. I am a student of game design, and I air more on the side of the kind that people like Egoraptor use to intelligently analyze games (in Sequelitis). You can analyze the way a game works without ruining them.
Stories in games are fantastic! The problem is that too often the story is literally the only thing the game has going for it. When that happens, why waste your time with it? Why not just make it a movie or a novel?
I watch/read a lot of Let's Plays over lunch for precisely that reason.
Comments
Generally I agree with you though. I didn't buy D2 and probably never will. I did buy BL2, despite playing it almost entirely on single player. My game buying decisions are not rational. Not even a little bit. Hell, I bought something like 10 copies of Terraria.
BL2 tries to take itself a little too seriously and tones down the ludicrously powerful player characters from the first game, and in doing so, removes a LOT of the appeal. The writing and comedy help salvage this but I'm not sure yet whether it's a successful operation.
Siren may be broken again, but defensively instead of offensively this time around.
Normally I'm loathe to play more than one character in a game like this, but I might do it to contrast with my assassin.
I do agree that $50 seems absurd now for a game, which is one of the major reasons for me switching mostly to PC is that gaming is a lot cheaper. I'm hard pressed to get a game at $50-$60 anymore.
However, there comes a point where you realize that there aren't really that many games. You may think that Stratego and Rock, Paper, Scissors are different games, but they aren't. And in that sense, you may as well just pick the best one and play that forever.
It does sound like you guys focus more on a game as being wholly about the mechanics (I'm also referring to video games exclusively here) which I have no issues with, but you could argue that many many board games are the exact same thing also with slightly different mechanics and different aesthetics, which I'm sure you are aware but you guys seem more accepting of board games over video games.
For example, take Timbuktu. We played it exactly once. I solved it before the first round ended. Scott and Alex solved it before the second round ended. I won purely because I'd solved it one round earlier. There was literally nothing else the game had to offer. We never played it again.
Board games don't get special treatment from us.
More importantly, consider this. Once I understand the core of a game, I have a very small number of choices.
1. Be content with that understanding and never play it seriously again.
2. Attempt to master extremely far-order mastery techniques in order to become a world-class player.
Once I've experienced a game's fullness, and further identified what it would take to achieve true mastery, I either actually commit to achieving mastery or lose interest entirely.
DDR is fantastic exercise. It can't get old in the same way that running or biking can't get old.
CounterStrike, I could spend the next decade perfecting my skill and still have room for improvement. I long ago identified what skills it tests, and decided that I enjoy working toward master of those skills. It's a line of mastery I chose almost 20 years ago when Doom was released and I decided that I wanted to master FPSs.
RTSs, I understand just as well what skills they test and what it would take to master them. I chose instead to forego playing them to any substantial degree.
I won't be playing the same games 40 years from now. I'll be playing primarily two kinds of games:
1. Novel games
2. Games which test the skills I've invested so much into and wish to continue to do so with.
Now, if a game has this, but lacks in all other elements, why is it even a game in the first place? If Portal hadn't been a great game first and foremost, no amount of clever story or interesting aesthetic would have caused me to play it.
"Games" like Gravity Bone are more like art installations. They are games, even by our own definitions, and are indeed driven primarily on aesthetic. However, games like this are extremely rare.
I also completely disagree with your first statement, but to each his own.
EDIT: Okay at least you admit that it would be an issue with all media, I'm fine with that.
As a small child, I HATED the random bullshit in most board games (which I played regularly). I played Monopoly by myself to try and solve it. When Rebel Assault came out, I recognized immediately that it was a shit, garbage, worthless game with a lot of pretty pictures and Star Wars tacked on top of it. I've recognized the severe disconnect between style and mechanics in games for almost as long as I've been alive.
Stories in games are fantastic! The problem is that too often the story is literally the only thing the game has going for it. When that happens, why waste your time with it? Why not just make it a movie or a novel?
A good game with a bad story is still a good game. A bad game with a good story is just a movie with quicktime events forced into it.
You can analyze the way a game works without ruining them.