/v/ - Video Games

Very cinematic!

>>15664268

There was a time when they were good.

How long ago did you realize this? Be honest.

>>15664325

It's been a few years now I'm just bored and wanted to shitpost.

Who the fuck keeps buying Assassin's Creed and Call of Duty? It's just the same game over and over again

>>15664354

Nobody and nobody respectively if the sales trends continue.

>>15664354

when you're a normalfag or a casual you only buy 2-3 games a year so they don't have anything to compare to and don't realize as quickly how recycled these products are

>>15664645

my prediction was mostly right then, I was really wagering on a player character shift into john marston where you kill Arthur in a duel, but that would actually be an interesting spin

>>15664689

Well, if you ever play RDR where the fuck is arthur lol. Prequel stories are honestly hard to care about unless they're expanding on lore or its your first in the series.

>>15664645

>Autrhor

How the fuck do you make a spelling mistake like that.

OP is correct but the truth hurts too much for all the plebs that infest /v/ now.

>>15664495

guaranteed you never played 1942 and vcod was better than medal of honor with united offensive being a great expansion

>>15664495

Most AAA games aren't even "just" action games now. Even fucking Cowadoody has "RPG elements" these days. AssCreed as well.

My brother asks me to pirate shit for him since he's too lazy to, so I end up giving whatever AAA thing he wants a shot, and since I'm a mega autist and must always 100% any game I start, I end up forming a lot of thoughts on games I would really have no other reason to try than "it's there and I'm sort of curious".

It amazes me how much money is spent on these near amateurish titles, and how much praise they get from shills customers.

Rarely anything in these games stand out, save for one thing, polish. These games have purty graphics but on closer inspection they're nothing special, or the animations are fairly stiff or terrible, and the gameplay has so much shine put into making them feel like they're good games but they're terrible when it comes down to the actual content. They lack things that other, better, cheaper games have no problem including and stumble on things that make you wonder how such decisions were snuck into these multi million dollar projects. Things like having these constant pace breaking minicutscenes that are unskippable, like opening doors or interacting with something, like completely skipping over everything that makes a TBT worth making and just boiling it down to PRETTY ANIMATIONS WOW AMAZING SLOW MOTION SO EPIC, things like taking out spacing, timing or just about any player thought from combat or platforming. I'm just amazed how little thought goes into what truly matters in these games and I'm even more amazed how anyone can like these psuedo autopilot games.

I am curious about something though, have any of you anons written off, even so far as to begin hating a game or a series just by looking at trailers or even by following general consensus here? At first I thought you should at least try a game before writing it off but after playing some of the more recent games I feel like I'm not really missing much since I've already played the game with a different coat of paint. Especially since 100%'ing them isn't fun, it's just this laundry list of things highlighted through magical GPS on the map for you to clean up.

>>15668381

The graphics in modern games are usually pretty awful. Most of them don't even have proper reflections or dynamic lighting.

>>15664495

>Battlefield 2 is trash

This is how we can tell you don't play vidya

>The entire genre of "action" games is cancer, because it's such an amorphous idea that almost any video game can fit into them (with the exception of something like fucking Animal Crossing). Thus, the bar for what's considered an "action" game is already insanely low.

>what are RPGs

>>15668381

>I am curious about something though, have any of you anons written off, even so far as to begin hating a game or a series just by looking at trailers or even by following general consensus here? At first I thought you should at least try a game before writing it off but after playing some of the more recent games I feel like I'm not really missing much since I've already played the game with a different coat of paint.

What you're describing is you suddenly recognizing stereotypical traits of shitty game trailers, and yes, anyone that isn't too retarded to recognize patterns and who hasn't been brainwashed into thinking using your innate heuristics to make judgments is a bad thing does it. If a trailer shows little to no gameplay, it's either vaporware or there really isn't any engaging gameplay to speak of and the sole purpose of the trailer is to hype you into buying it anyway. Marketing is cancer and journalism is paid off or has an agenda, so the best way to judge a game without playing it is to actually watch gameplay with no commentary, no cuts, no music overlaid (a common trick to manipulate your emotions), no editing whatsoever. What you see is what you get. Even then you can't always judge how the game controls by watching someone else play, so the next step is to try it, either by downloading a demo or pirating it. You don't have to go about shitting on a game you've only ever seen the trailer of, but yes, seeing a shitty trailer and silently thinking "I'm never paying money for or even pirating that" is perfectly acceptable and helps to filter out shitty games. Likewise, you can look at games with a certain indie pixelshit, mobile game, or shovelware aesthetic and assume it's shit without touching the game and almost always be right once you know what to look for.

>>15669095

>>15668381

There's a trick that Ubisoft in particular likes to use for their trailers called camerakeying, or something like that, where they manually point the camera at fixed locations and then run a program that moves the camera at a constant speed to each of the fixed points. They can do this with the character movement and shooting as well. I know a few games let you actually do this yourself, WoW is the only example I can think of off the top of my head, but once you realize it you'll never unsee just how unnatural that overly smooth movement looks. It's just not humanly possible.

>>15668381

>have any of you anons written off, even so far as to begin hating a game or a series just by looking at trailers or even by following general consensus here?

>Zelda:BoTW

>Horizon Zero Dawn

>Mass Effect:Andromeda

>Star Citizen

>No Man's Sky

>Newest Spiderman

and few others.

>>15669189

You missed literally nothing other than Mercenary Tao'ing yourself in Zelda once then getting bored right after .

>>15669095

I just find it odd. An entire industry with millions of dollars being pumped in and a fuckton of the games are just the same, and they all have you playing auto-pilot mode. I had to stop playing AAA for a decade since my PC was ded and I just recently(two years ago) got an upgrade, and outside of games that actually needed the hardware like Ni-oh or Exanima(whether they truly needed the hardware or some effort put into optimization is another thing entirely) I'm still pretty much playing the same type of game.

It's not so much the sameyness of the games that bother but this auto-pilot I've been mentioning it. Just moving around or attacking has to be scripted now, you can't time your jumps or move with precision. Games like Shadow of Mordor and Arkham have this issue prominently, they just feel like you're playing with an action figure and moving him around with your own hand. Yeah the animations look kind of nice when you're moving big distances but smaller distances is where it really begins to falter.

Why is this thread anchored?