Not true, you can climb a lot of terrain kinda like in Skyrim, you may hit some invisible walls, but there's quite a lot that is climbable that is not the laid path. Play the game next time.
lol, you lost me at "Witcher 3" a game about a hunter where the combat (the hunting) is the worst aspect of it all. And the traversal and climbing in the Witcher is absolute crap. Again, try playing the games for yourself next time.
Games all age poorly. Some age faster than others.
None age "like a fine wine".
Mario 64, Ocarina of Time, Half Life would all be considered trash if they released today. Nostalgia is a hellofadrug.
Bloodborne is pretty great and is a reason I said "most" and not all
Probably because grooming standards aren't the same in a post-apoc world?
Maybe, I think they would still look very similar with those minor alterations.
Yup. I hate the influence ubisoft had on the industry. Go collect this. Go do this pointless mission. Etc.
Sadly, I would like next Killzone rather than Horizon,,,
Wash your mouth before dissing the masterpiece called Ghost of Tsushima!
I skipped the game because of how ugly they made the lead. I don't know what kind of statement they were trying to make by going the ugly route but I didn't want to support it.
I don't believe there was some ulterior motive here haha. You probably just don't like it, which is understandable.
If that means it would kill of all clones that came with it I'd take the bet and say it would still make a huge splash especially on mobile/casual platforms.
I posted almost the same problems as you in another thread. I made the same mistake as you, and trying to climb on this game after playing Breath of the Wild felt incredible frustrating. As i also said in another thread, having to rely on shiny platforms is incredibly outdated, as if I was playing Uncharted on PS3.
Guerrilla just didn’t have their finger on the pulse of the future of gaming when they developed HZD. Assassins creed origins, for instance, made a number of really good changes to its open world formula in the same year. I don’t know if they were inspired by BotW or not, but it seems that open worlds were absolutely pushing toward more explorative worlds at the time regardless. Even Dying Light in 2015 seemed to understand where open world gaming was going with exploration. Unfortunately, HZD just didn’t understand and they released a game with a open world system that felt dated in many ways at or near launch. Hopefully, they are looking to the future of gaming a little more with HZD2 this time around. They don’t have to rip off zelda’s feature set, but they do need to figure out something special for their sequel or it’ll fall by the wayside of mediocrity.
GoldenEye is fantastic considering you playing it on PC with decent FPS and mouse controls.
Possibly, but perhaps it would be different and instead of Tetris and alike Columns or whatever would have become the super success. I don't get that you can't appreciate video game history. Games age, like any medium in some capacity. Mechanics and standards change. You can't expect a game that was developed to capture a completely different zeitgeist to make it in the current era, because got people got used to modern mechanics and graphics and modern pop culture as well(On the other hand the retro business is healthy and bigger than ever.). When society changes, so does their art.
Not to dogpile, but this.
I actually felt like the biggest robot fights were a bit of a let down in the experience as a whole. I felt like they were a bit spongy and the combat system didn't quite fit the fights that they presented. Maybe I did something wrong back then, but I was very much remember being disappointed with many of the larger robot fights. In general, I felt that the combat as a whole was one of the weakest points in the game. The combat easily beat the dated open world systems and the horrible inventory system with tons of boxes of junk to go through, however.
Meanwhile there are ton modern throwbacks of shooters of the same time period. Take Dusk for example, which was universally praised, all while looking and playing like a game from 1998. So no, I doubt GoldenEye would get shit on today, especially if this hypothetical modern release had modern day FPS, graphics and production values etc.
I guess it depends on how you look at games. Aging is natural, I don't see as a bad thing. You age too and 20 year old you was probably objectively better too, doesn't mean that 80 year old you is a bunch of trash. And video games are obviously different and as a form of media and form of art are damned to be analyzed till the end, but come on, it almost sounds like you are an ass for enjoying Mario 64 (still one of the best 3D platformers) or old school Resident Evil/Silent Hill (still some of the best horror survival games), because L0ok At THE NEW gaMES.
Why do you own 4 copies of TR underworld and 3 of Anniversary on 3 different platforms but no Shadow of the tomb raider?
So true.
I'd have to disagree with this statement. The age of a game matters little to its overall quality. There were terrible games in the 70s-90s just as there are terrible games today. The problem, in my opinion, is how a game takes advantage of its platform. Games like Tetris and Super Mario Bros 3 are nearly perfect in their design in part because they were built around the strengths of the system for which they were initially designed. The problem of aging arises when games try to push a platform to do things that it does poorly. There were a great number of PS1-PS3 games that pushed hard for photorealistic graphics that were praised at their time, but look like garbage today. However, games like Wind Waker that was built with the strengths of the Gamecube in mind still looks great today--even if its a bit jaggy on occasion.
Uh that was in GTA before Ubisoft.
