The Witcher and some games had the stories so good that I enjoyed it but even in the Wicher 3 I skipped dialogs on the very first play-through. At some point I just ran though those dialogs to trigger the quests. I catched myself skipping a lot of dialog lately because its was not interesting and I actually just wanted to actually PLAY and not play the "freedom game" of what to ask or say first. I actually like dense but good games and if they are linear I like it. Depending on the game there is put a lot of work into the world but I cant help to see the same pattern and copy pasting of things just to make it bigger and to have more room to put more NPCs, more walking, more driving area into it. And put in a bunch of NPCs and have them talk some shit. Its like 80% walking and fast traveling across the map and 20% actual fights that are not that interesting in most of those highly praised open world games.Īnd how are they made? Create one big map (or several big maps like in The Outer Worlds). Its the same thing I have done in so many games again and again, walk from A to B to deliver some meaningless item or kill some guys.
Die hard trilogy igg professional#
It feels like I am playing a professional Oblivion mod. I cant help but feel I already played the game b4.
Even though I LOVED Fallout 3 and New Vegas.
Ah and I did also bail on Fallout 4 and obviously 67. What I also recently bailed on The Outer Worlds. In the past basically every game sucked me in and I was addicted to almost every game that was not totally shit.
They throw tons of quests at you where you basically need to from A to B and this way they keep the playerbase playing and have steamstats to sell more games because people are playing and talking about the games and the press writes about games that are played for hundreds of hours. Even after I swore to myself to if I even play it to rush just the main story missions in the next far cry I actually did play far fry primal and for sure did not even sidequests but also did more then I needed to and Ubisoft did it again and the short fast action satisfaction kicked in and I actually did enjoy the game.īut as I get older and more conscious about it and look at the games and how they are made and that its basically the exact same process for all this kinds of open world games. I played ALL KINDS of open world games and get addicted every single time. I finished skyrim 2 (or even more times) and actually spent probably almost 400 hours in it. My post sounds like I hate open world when in fact I just name ONE game that I actually really bailed on and that is RAGE 2 and the general consensus helped me to make this decision.
People are tricked into thinking linear = bad and open world = good. I have nothing against open world if its done good like Witcher 3. I bailed on RAGE 2 because they took Open World BS to the next level, sooo boring, soo empty, so annoying to drive somewhere to just shoot a few guys to then drive back again. I would like this games more in a linear way with just the main missions, challenge and be done with it. Blood Dragon was hugely successful with a much smaller map and proved there was no need for this big world. I swore to myself I will never do anything like it again. Far Cry 4 (or was it 3 or 5?) was so meaningless Ubisoft tricked me again to do most of the open world BS just so I can in the end carry like 21 grenades that only make the end of the game more easy and boring. I much rather have actually designed levels you meant to pass through. I love linear games, its mostly a mindgame, people think they want "choice" but then they just get one big boring open world where enemies and bases and copy pasted in.
0 kommentar(er)
