Comment on Games you really want to play, but can't or won't?
PlzGivHugs@sh.itjust.works 7 hours agoI’ve tried a bunch of the big ones. Fallout 1&3, Skyrim, Final Fantasy 3 and 7, Pokemon, Borderlands, a couple of different MMORPGs, and a bunch of random others. My description was a bit oversimplified, but my point was more about the general lack of care towards the primary loops that you spend 99% of the game engaging with. For example, Fallout 3 has terrible gunplay which is further limitted by the need to focus on one weapon type, and uninteresting AI which doesn’t leave room for deeper tactics. Pokemon, along with a lot of other JRPGs, often boil down to finding one or two decent buffs/debuffs to use, then spamming whatever does highest damage. MMOs obvious tend to require a lot of grinding repetitive, often easy enemies.
That said, I have found some of the RPG-adjacent games better. Roguelikes are one of my favorite genres, since they tend to center around a strong gameplay loop, while still featuring the non-linearity and character builds. Same with tactics games. Honestly Dark Souls seems like it may be a good option, but I bounced off of it due to technical issues the first time and just haven’t gotten around to trying it again.
ampersandrew@lemmy.world 3 hours ago
I’d argue that a game like Fallout, 1 or 3, is not 99% combat, and that’s probably where the disconnect is. They intend for you to do some detective work and even solve problems without combat plenty of times too, even when you have a combat-heavy build. Pokemon is a strange one here too, because that series is built around a rock paper scissors system such that you should be regularly be switching up which attacks you’re using. I’d love to see if your complaints hold up to Larian’s games on tactician difficulty.