Steam+ Deals Mega Thread (All PC Gaming Deals)

Neuro5i5

Neuro5i5

CAGiversary!
Feedback
151 (100%)
This thread will attempt to provide a place to discuss past/present/future PC gaming deals. While mainly focusing on Steam games, any standout sales may also be presented. I will not be updating every Daily/Weekly/etc. sale. The tools to help individuals become a smarter shopper will be provided below.

See this POST for links to store sale pages, threads of interest and other tools to help you become a more informed PC game shopper.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 11 Downvote
archibishopofBAH said:
The bigger problem in respect to 100% is just the sheer amount of shit that they have going on. The maps are big and theres just so much stuff to do and some of it is monotonous.
Click to expand...
That sounds like the problem of a lot of games doing them UbiSoft-style open-world games of late - i.e. Assassin's Creed series, Mad Max, Mafia 3 & Mass Effect: Andromeda; and that's just for starters.

 
rcsample said:
Of course + yes + it is obvious + clear + common sense + plain as day

So please continue +carry on+ sally forth+naming the rest of the games Mr. Robot +Rain Man + 5 minutes till Wapner
Click to expand...
Add also GR: Wildlands; and Far Cry 2+3+4.

And BTW, Mr. Robot (S3E1) was pretty good the other night.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
MysterD said:
That sounds like the problem of a lot of games doing them UbiSoft-style open-world games of late - i.e. Assassin's Creed series, Mad Max, Mafia 3 & Mass Effect: Andromeda; and that's just for starters.
Click to expand...
It's not a problem unless you're OCD. Seriously, you don't need to find every stained porno mag on the map.

Now, if a game locks the "real" ending behind 50,000 garbage map points, then that's a problem.

 
Syntax Error said:
It's not a problem unless you're OCD. Seriously, you don't need to find every stained porno mag on the map.

Now, if a game locks the "real" ending behind 50,000 garbage map points, then that's a problem.
Click to expand...
giphy.gif


 
Last edited by a moderator:
I remember back when open-world games didn't have all busy-quests for side-quests - which basically was most open-world games before AC-style template took over open-world games.

Back when Loyalty Quests and Special Quests/Missions were the actual norm on side-quests.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Syntax Error said:
That's not an issue in Assassins Creed, Mad Max, Far Cry or the other games you mentioned though. If you're going to bring up examples, they should probably support your point.
Click to expand...
Batman: AK's real ending is hidden behind 100% Completing the game. Another WB-published game where you need to end-game grind to see a "True Ending," like Shadow of War.

About some games in AC franchise (especially AC1, AC: Rev and AC: Unity); Mad Max; and Far Cry - those series often suffer from repetitive quest-types lacking variety; and either having grind-y and/or meaningless (MMO-style) side quests.

In the older days, it was easier to not really do side-quests in open-world action games b/c often games weren't tied to grind-y leveling-up systems. You just did them...yeah, just to do them, as busy work. Now, it's like every open-world action-game wants to add ARPG-style leveling-up mechanics.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
FissFiss said:
People complaining about content. What the shit is this.
Click to expand...
If open-world games had more real content w/ meat to them (actual stories, character development, unique-ness in gameplay, set pieces when necessary, and anything else to make a quest stand-out) and whatnot to them (think Vampire: Bloodlines) and less of the padding-type of MMO-grindy side stuff as necessary busy-work (for leveling-up purposes) - yeah, maybe open-world games (which are so over-saturating the market these days, BTW) wouldn't feel so...grind-y.

Companies now also adding other things like micro-transactions, $$ loot boxes, and hiding "true endings" behind end-games and 100% completions on top are only going to make the grind worse, since those who don't drop $$ have to grind more.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
MysterD said:
If open-world games had more real content w/ meat to them (actual stories, character development, unique-ness in gameplay, set pieces when necessary, and anything else to make a quest stand-out) and whatnot to them (think Vampire: Bloodlines) and less of the padding-type of MMO-grindy side stuff as necessary busy-work (for leveling-up purposes) - yeah, maybe open-world games (which are so over-saturating the market these days, BTW) wouldn't feel so...grind-y.

Companies now also adding other things like micro-transactions, $$ loot boxes, and hiding "true endings" behind end-games and 100% completions on top are only going to make the grind worse, since those who don't drop $$ have to grind more.
Click to expand...
What's your complaint, this is just like real life. If I pay the normal price, I get the normal ending, if I pay extra, I get the happy ending.
AMIRITE!?!?
 
DonaldBlank said:
There's a Doom wad that takes longer than the existence of time to beat.

It's just you waiting for a door to open, twice.

Does it have a lot of content just because it takes literally longer than forever to beat?
Click to expand...
Bad example though since most of these games are more like "You can walk through the door now and win or you can stay and shoot any number of the 10,000 demons first" and people respond with "But shooting all 10,000 demons takes so long! Terrible game!"

In most of these games, it makes zero practical difference if you shoot the 10,000 demons or not. It's just something to do if you find shooting demons fun. Maybe you get an achievement -- oh boy. But people lose their shit because they can't control their OCD enough to think "Hey, maybe I should shoot demons until it ceases being fun and then stop."

Dragon Age: Inquisition was the first game where I really noticed this. People got all pissed off about the amount of minor quest markers in the Hinterlands because apparently "Hey, you're level eight now in a 1-5 zone; you can just move to the next spot" was too complex for them. No, instead let's rant about there being too much stuff to do in the open world game.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Tonight the bros played current Free Weekend WWII shooter, Day of Infamy. It's made by the same who made Insurgency and plays somewhat similarly. It's not a bad game at all, but I can't say its something I would want to spend a lot of time in trying to become competent. We stuck to the cooperative mode the entire time and we won once out of about 15-20 rounds give or take. Hard as nails bots that just keep respawning unless you're moving to cap the objective. I'd play it again if it was bundled, but not something I'd be enthusiastic about regularly rotating. There are also marketplace drops in it which are falling for the free version. I made $0.66 off the two I received fairly quickly (from the time the play time ended to a few minutes ago).

There's nothing more scheduled until Tuesday when Road Redemption makes its long awaited bro night debut (provided multi is back up and running). The weekend will likely be impromptu PUBG sessions and some of the bros are getting into ESO so maybe those that are will be doing that. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Is there a way I can download Wildlands through Steam and transfer to UPlay? Not sure what's going on with my Internet lately. Steam seems to be downloading mostly fine, but UPlay right now is taking forever. Everywhere in my house is getting 50-70 Mbps except my PC, which is getting 12-14 Mbps, and UPlay is only downloading about 400 kbps, so wildlands has an ETA of 20 hours.

 
Syntax Error said:
Dragon Age: Inquisition was the first game where I really noticed this where people got all pissed off about the amount of minor quest markers in the Hinterlands because apparently "Hey, you're level eight now in a 1-5 zone; you can just move to the next spot" was too complex for them. No, instead let's rant about there being too much stuff to do in the open world game.
Click to expand...
Speaking of Dragon Age... Another member of the old guard left Bioware.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2017-10-13-dragon-age-creative-director-mike-laidlaw-leaves-bioware-after-14-years

 
Update; I had Steam and UPlay both running. Borderlands 2 went from 4 hours to 58 minutes once I closed out of it. Wonder if it's something on UPlay's end?

 
plus1zero said:
Update; I had Steam and UPlay both running. Borderlands 2 went from 4 hours to 58 minutes once I closed out of it. Wonder if it's something on UPlay's end?
Click to expand...
yea uplay has always been hit or miss for me but tonight it was slow as well, doing 1mbps when downloading a wildlands update. For ~6mo uplay would consistently do half of my actual download speed, then out of nowhere it started doing full speed. Tonight was the first time in a while it had messed up again, so maybe their cdn provider having some issues

 
Syntax Error said:
Dragon Age: Inquisition was the first game where I really noticed this. People got all pissed off about the amount of minor quest markers in the Hinterlands because apparently "Hey, you're level eight now in a 1-5 zone; you can just move to the next spot" was too complex for them. No, instead let's rant about there being too much stuff to do in the open world game.
Click to expand...
Eos in Mass Effect: Andromeda has the DA:I Hinterlands thing going on. Once ME:A and DA:I does open-up to let you be able to move on, though - do it ASAP. Planet-hop (in MEA's case) and world-hop (in DA:I's case) as much as you can, in those games - when things (finally) open-up to let you leave. MEA is designed very similar to DAI, in the open-world and galaxy/world map factors and with MMO-like side-quests everywhere. ME:A is going to take your around 15-20 hours before you can even get allowed to leave the first planet of Eos (which you are building up).

I think the thing is: too many games are being designed very similar, in the open-world arena. Open-world games used to be loaded w/ unique-quests everywhere - but since games (especially in the AAA space) have now almost everything voice-acted, costs of developing and marketing sky-rocketed - yeah, we're getting less of those unique quests and Loyalty quests. Now, we're getting more UbiSoft style side-quests in so many different open-world action-games and open-world RPG's.

Also, branching choices seem to have gotten less in decision-making in the AAA space, too - especially in RPG's. RPG's have become more ARPG (focused on skill & character leveling & grinding) and less on the RPG (decision-making) - i.e. go compare Fallout 3 & FO New Vegas to Fallout 4 (less); and ME1+2+3 against ME:A. Both ME:A and Fallout 4 have often different varying shades of good and/or choices of illusion (result still is the same, no matter what dialogue choice you select).

ME2+3; BG series; and DAO had a lot of unique side-quests, in which many weren't of the MMO style/ARPG busy-works quests. It seems to be more quantity than quality on side-quests, padding out the length of the game. Seems like we're gone the reverse, where now we have more of the latter (MMO style/ARPG busy-works) than unique side-quests.

A better balance would to have a good mix of unique quests stuff (Main Quest normally is very unique and Loyalty quests/Unique Side-Quest also, like in the older days); and also some MMO side-quests (for busy work before you finish the main quest and especially for the end-game).

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Played some GR: Wildlands yesterday, with it on the free weekend and all. Seems like it has improved upon the Beta a bit (which I spent about 5 hours with in the Beta, BTW), in terms of performance (technically) and car-handling. 2 hours into this from the Free Weekend or so.

I still miss how you can't completely control your party, like in say GRAW series. Like ME:A, Dungeon Siege 2, R6: Vegas and other games (when compared to earlier entries in their series) - the micro-managing of your party has became weakened and also less strategic, in favor or making the game more action-y. You can't entirely control them, full-blown style or close-to-that - though you can give them a few orders...and that's about it. 

This feels more like a cross of the open-world UbiSoft template of games (insert many of them, since AC series); GTA style games (vehicles to drive to areas); borrows the Mark & Execute skill shot from recent Splinter Cell games since Conviction (but now a party can do it, so they named this Sync Shot here); stealth games (you can sneak around); and some ARPG character progression (i.e. leveling-up, which includes upgrading your actual skills & character); and some GR elements (i.e. can be difficult b/c you can't take many hits, or you will get knocked down or die very quickly).

I like it - but yeah, I'm not loving it.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
DA:I had a ton of larger side quest stuff.  There were four optional companions to discover and all the companions had lengthy side quests.  There were entire regions of the map unattached from the main plot that existed only for more optional game content.  Emprise du Lion existed to support Cullen's giant side plot and it's full of content.  But then there's some quest markers for finding shards and people start yelling "Ubisoft stuff!"

Games like Far Cry, Watch Dogs, Batman, Mad Max, etc aren't RPGs.  They don't need substantial "side quests".  They don't need introspective shades of morality when solving puzzles.  I don't play Far Cry for "unique side quests", I play it to have fun shooting dudes and getting mauled by tigers.  If they want to pepper the map with more reasons for me to shoot dudes and get tiger-jumped then we're cool.

You keep conflating stuff.  You complain about games locking out a "true ending" behind 10,000 fetch missions and then list a bunch of games, only two of which qualify.  You complain about not enough RPG-style options in non-RPG games.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGsHq-mZI8U​

 
Waggles said:
Well I know I prefer my games to be filled with shit content for me to sift through so I can find the real content.
Click to expand...
Has that ever been a problem? I never felt obligated to collect all the postcards in Mad Max. Nor was I confused about "Hey, is collecting all these postcards the main story line?" Likewise for WWII letters in Far Cry 3 or the minor fetch quest markers in DA:I or glowie shard thingies in AC4: Black Flag. They've always been optional "Do this if you like it" content and I was never unable to figure out what the actual story line was. Which games confused you?

I guess it's weird because they're giving you extra optional content and the complaint seems to be a vague assurance that, if they didn't, we'd get longer stories? I guess? Except in most of these games it doesn't matter. Certainly not the Ubisoft ones. If Far Cry 4 had a longer story, it would just be me killing more dudes. So we remove all the optional "kill dudes" content to replace it with mandatory "kill dudes" content and maybe another cut scene and that's a big improvement? I don't know -- I almost feel like I'd rather be able to control the game length myself than making the extra five hundred guys I have to kill a required "feature" rather than something to do if I'm enjoying myself.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Reply to Syntax's post from here - https://www.cheapassgamer.com/topic/341407-steam-deals-mega-thread-all-pc-gaming-deals/page-3685#entry13852561

Far Cry, Watch Dogs, Batman series, Mad Max, Mafia 3, etc - you're right, they're not RPG's; not entirely. Yet, they all do have the ARPG elements - upgrading skills, characters, equipment, etc etc. They lack the RPG-decision stuff, if we're looking at the RPG side of things - not that they need them. While many of these games are good here - a lot of them, in the grand schemes of things, they're not great. Batman hasn't hit greatness since Arkham City; and Mafia series still hasn't hit the greatness of the (linear) original. They're lacking...that something special to make them great. 

And in games w/ so much "UbiSoft stuff" style content loaded everywhere, it can get....well, get repetitive at some point; especially when games from other genres are mixing elements from other genres. You got action games adding ARPG elements and RPG games trying to be more action-y, in many instances - losing what made them special in the first place.

Games that weren't open-world before are now heading in that direction...and not always for better, either. Some RPG's that weren't so open-world before (i.e. Witcher 1&2) became open-world in the sequel (Witcher 3); you have action games like Homefront 1 (which was linear and CoD-like) in its sequel become open-world in the sequel (Homefront: The Revolution) and Far Cry 1 (a linear-style FPS w/ huge open-space levels) totally change direction to open-world in their sequels (Far Cry 2 and beyond).  Open-world games are also feeling like they're stealing elements from each other and being more like each other...than say carving their own identity, like they have done in the past. 

A lot of them are also losing what made them special in the first place. In this case, we're getting a lot of sequels than ain't as good as previous games b/c they're either doing too much of the same or radically changing the series & fumbling that attempt somehow - Far Cry 4 is too much like Far Cry 3 for its own good; Mass Effect: Andromeda is really not much like ME 2+3, since it tries to do some DAI type of open-world stuff and suffers on the character & story stuff; Mad Max has Batman Arkham's combat style & the usual UbiSoft open-world thing; and Watch Dogs 1 was a GTA-style mix & stealth mix with hacking elements that just horrible at storytelling & character developments (despite focusing heavily on cut-scenes, dialogue, and whatnot); and now AC: Origins looks to going more so in the ARPG direction (not sure if that'll be for the better or not - even though AC is getting very repetitive especially since they bank out iterations every 2 years (i.e. ACS to ACO), yearly, or even 2 games in one year like AC: Rogue and AC: Unity). 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
MysterD said:
Games that weren't open-world before are now heading in that direction...and not always for better, either. Some RPG's that weren't so open-world before (i.e. Witcher 1&2) became open-world in the sequel (Witcher 3); you have action games like Homefront 1 (which was linear and CoD-like) in its sequel become open-world in the sequel (Homefront: The Revolution) and Far Cry 1 (a linear-style FPS w/ huge open-space levels) totally change direction to open-world in their sequels (Far Cry 2 and beyond).
Click to expand...
So your examples are Witcher 3, which is considered the best of the series, Homefront: Revolution which was much better than the previous game (campaign-wise, anyway) and Far Cry 2-4/Primal which, again, I'd argue are better than the original? Ok, then.

A lot of them are also losing what made them special in the first place. In this case, we're getting a lot of sequels than ain't as good as previous games b/c they're either doing too much of the same or radically changing the series & fumbling that attempt somehow - Far Cry 4 is too much like Far Cry 3 for its own good; Mass Effect: Andromeda is really not much like ME 2+3, since it tries to do some DAI type of open-world stuff and suffers on the character & story stuff; Mad Max has Batman Arkham's combat style & the usual UbiSoft open-world thing; and Watch Dogs 1 was at GTA mix & stealth mix with hacking that just horrible at storytelling & character developments
Click to expand...
FC4 being too much like FC3 doesn't represent a "change" since -- as you just said -- the change to open world game several games earlier. It was just them using the same formula. Mad Max & Watch Dogs couldn't have "lost what made them special" since they were the first of their series. Watch Dogs might have been shitty at telling a story but so... you wanted MORE of the shitty story? Because if they made all the optional content into mandatory plot content, that's what you would have gotten. More cut scenes with terrible story in it. It's not as though they were saying "Wow, our story is wretched but if we didn't have these 'stop the gang' missions, we could totally make a good story!" ME:A had a billion other issues during its development but, since I have no interest in playing it, sure... ME:A was totally ruined by open world mini-missions.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
MysterD said:
Games that weren't open-world before are now heading in that direction...and not always for better, either. Some RPG's that weren't so open-world before (i.e. Witcher 1&2) became open-world in the sequel (Witcher 3); you have action games like Homefront 1 (which was linear and CoD-like) in its sequel become open-world in the sequel (Homefront: The Revolution) and Far Cry 1 (a linear-style FPS w/ huge open-space levels) totally change direction to open-world in their sequels (Far Cry 2 and beyond). Open-world games are also feeling like they're stealing elements from each other and being more like each other...than say carving their own identity, like they have done in the past.
Click to expand...
Personally I love open world games overall, having a world to explore is fun. Generally speaking I prefer an open world game over a linear one, but making a game open world simply for the sake of doing so sucks. You need to fill it with at least semi interesting things. An example of how to do it right is the Witcher 3, while an example of crappy execution is Dragon Age inquisition (really good game, but they filled the world with fetch quests). More content to me is generally a good thing, but if it's nothing but fetch quests it just feels like padding put in for the sake of being able to market your game as open world.

The company by far the worst w/open worlds though is ubisoft (it's cliche to say this, but true imo). They fill their game space with endless repetitive missions and collectibles. Regardless, I'd (generally speaking) rather have it that way than a complete linear game. You have the option to seek that stuff out, you can blast through the story if you want.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Syntax Error said:
So your examples are Witcher 3, which is considered the best of the series, Homefront: Revolution which was much better than the previous game (campaign-wise, anyway) and Far Cry 2-4/Primal which, again, I'd argue are better than the original? Ok, then.

FC4 being too much like FC3 doesn't represent a "change" since -- as you just said -- the change to open world game several games earlier. It was just them using the same formula. Mad Max & Watch Dogs couldn't have "lost what made them special" since they were the first of their series. Watch Dogs might have been shitty at telling a story but so... you wanted MORE of the shitty story? Because if they made all the optional content into mendatory plot content, that's what you would have gotten. More cut scenes with terrible story in it. ME:A had a billion other issues during its development but, since I have no interest in playing it, sure... ME:A was totally ruined by open world mini-missions.
Click to expand...
Far Cry 1 and 3 are the best games in the FC franchise, IMHO. FC1 started the series w/ a bang with somewhat open-area maps and spaces; FC2 was a good open-world attempt, but wasn't great (the original was) b/c of the repetitive cuts & paste missions everywhere (i.e. the AC1 problem). FC3 was great for its time, but FC4 did nothing of much to move the series forward. I loved FC3: Blood Dragon, though. Keep in mind, I have not played FC: Primal...yet.

About Watch Dogs 1 - story sucked & character development sucked. Characters were often killed out, took cliche routes, or storylines were done nothing of much with. While the vehicles & combat rocked, the other stuff sucked. They should've hired better writers for dialogue, storytelling, and all of that stuff - since they decided to focus on lots of dialogue and cut-scenes. Can't speak on if that improved since WD2, since I ain't played it yet.

Mad Max and Watch Dogs are first in their franchises, but they do lack that special something to make them great. Both of those games are taking elements from other games - especially UbiSoft-style open-world games, in particular - but, do very little or nothing of much new to take their games and open-world games to greatness. While Mad Max runs fantastic like most Avalanche games do technically (except Just Cause 3) - it lacks something. I mentioned elements Mad Max and WD were taking - so, let me quote myself:

Mad Max has Batman Arkham's combat style & the usual UbiSoft open-world thing; and Watch Dogs 1 was a GTA-style mix & stealth mix with hacking elements that just horrible at storytelling & character developments (despite focusing heavily on cut-scenes, dialogue, and whatnot)
Click to expand...
And, that's basically it w/ Mad Max and WD1: they take elements from other games; they might do a few cool new things and have small spins on the genre (i.e. Mad Max's car combat's pretty good and WD's hacking stuff is fun) but not much more than that; and don't do much w/ storytelling, dialogue, writing and/or try it to make (very poor) attempts at it - which makes them feel lackluster in those elements.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
pasports31 said:
Personally I love open world games overall, having a world to explore is fun. Generally speaking I prefer an open world game over a linear one, but making a game open world simply for the sake of doing so sucks. You need to fill it with at least semi interesting things.

An example of how to do it right is the Witcher 3, while an example of crappy execution is Dragon Age inquisition (really good game, but they filled the world with fetch quests). More content to me is generally a good thing, but if it's nothing but fetch quests it just feels like padding put in for the sake of being able to market your game as open world.

The company by far the worst w/open worlds though is ubisoft (it's cliche to say this, but true imo). They fill their game space with endless repetitive missions and collectibles. Regardless, I'd (generally speaking) rather have it that way than a complete linear game. You have the option to seek that stuff out, you can blast through the story if you want.
Click to expand...
Excellent post.

EDIT:

I also like open-world games w/ the freedom to go anywhere - but yeah, a lot of them lately seem to be open-world just to check a box on the list and to pad-out game-time to make it more attractive for the $60 price-tag so that "you can get 50-100 hours out of this game" looks like more (possible) bang-for-the-buck.

ME:A and Mafia 3 in particular, really scream of this of late. Good games, yes - but they won't even reach greatness b/c of how repetitive they are (especially Mafia 3 - this game screams of repetitive quests badly, despite having a fantastic story & character development) and how they especially lack in certain aspects (i.e. ME:A's storytelling, characters, writing, and dialogue for a ME-branded game just ain't on the ME1+2+3 level). After about 53 hours of ME:A and 23 hours w/ Mafia 3 - I really just wish these games' main quest would....wrap-up soon.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Are we really going to defend the spattering of useless objectives all over open world games?  There is such an abundance of these games now that you can ignore playing all but the very best ones.   I can't even understand why people bother playing Assassin's Creed games when they are so comparatively mediocre.   Even better games like Watch Dogs, Farcry, and Ghost Recon Wildlands get overlooked because there are better offerings out there.  GTA, Red Dead Redemption, Fallout 4, The Witcher 3, Skyrim, MGS V, Zelda BOTW, the list goes on and on.

The market is completely saturated with open world games.   Ubisoft shoulders a good amount of the blame here.  Games among this genre don't make for good back-to-back playthroughs, either.  The competition among games has gotten so much fiercer.  So the cream has to rise to the top.  Therefore its impossible to defend the draconian gameplay elements of worthless map objectives.  It simply becomes hollow content from inferior games. 

A large, detailed world is meaningless if it's not engaging nor dynamic.  A lot of people find themselves playing less and less open world games because they are time consuming and they fail to become immersive.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Nothing371 said:
Are we really going to defend the spattering of useless objectives all over open world games?
Click to expand...
It's not really that it needs a defense so much as I haven't heard of a solid complaint that doesn't boil down to "I'm too OCD to stop pressing the button when I'm not having fun".

I haven't played a single game where I thought "This would be fun except for all these optional objectives that are totally ruining the game for me". I have played games where I thought "This is fun and I wish there was more of the game play to just mess around in". MysterD brought up FC4 but that game was a marked improvement from FC3 for me. One of the things I disliked in FC3 was that taking a base sanitized the region so there were no more bad guys and thus nothing to do. In FC4 they not only made taking bases less of a sure thing (still got patrols, attempts to retake the base) but there were also a lot of optional objectives that had enemies in them. So, when I wanted to just screw around trying to snipe a bunch of guys unseen or rush in and pin them all with harpoons, I had plenty of dudes to do that with.

I fail to be upset by the fact that there's so many great open world games that otherwise good games are seen as "mediocre".

Therefore its impossible to defend the draconian gameplay elements of worthless map objectives
Click to expand...
I'm not sure you know what "draconian" means but I'm pretty sure it doesn't apply to optional objectives.

MysterD said:
ME:A and Mafia 3 in particular, really scream of this of late.
Click to expand...
I dealt with this by realizing that they looked like shitty games and then not buying them :lol:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Another problem is that everything has become so homogenized too.   Borderlands, The Division, Destiny, Mass Effect, Wildlands all combine several of the strongest aspects from RPGs like character stats and loadout micromanagement, along with having a massive world to explore.  Shooters like Call of Duty and Battlefield do similar things too with their character loadouts, paper doll stats, and large worlds.  RPG elements and open worlds have become integral parts of most AAA games.  Everything starts to feel a bit samey, grindy, and derivative.  Certain elements are needed to rise above. 

The most memorable games are going to be the ones with strong character development, engaging and webbing plots, or the very best gameplay mechanics.  All of the best open world games have incredibly strong suits in one of these main areas.  The pantheon of best games will be comprised of things like GTA for its storytelling and diverse gameplay,   Zelda for its interactive environment and multiplicative gameplay, RDR and Metal Gear Solid for their interesting characters and plots, or LA Noire for its truly unique gameplay.  A lot of the other jack-of-all-trades games (Ubisoft-likes) are going to be largely forgotten. Ain't nobody got time for that. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Syntax Error said:
It's not really that it needs a defense so much as I haven't heard of a solid complaint that doesn't boil down to "I'm too OCD to stop pressing the button when I'm not having fun".
Click to expand...
The main-quest normally should be the most important aspect of the game - with the best & most unique quests, missions, levels, areas, etc. Your goal should always to be, if this main quest is engaging, to be able to get through it "no problem".

The problem is when there's too much side-stuff, it can really get in the way of many things - such as direction, pacing of the story & character-development (if there is any attempt and succeeding of that), and (of course) actual fun. If there's too many destroy X items, kill X enemies, find X areas; it can get repetitive - especially if there's little else to keep the player engaged.

I have not got through Mafia 3 and its excellent story b/c there's so much side stuff here and some of these quests types & areas get revisited in the main quest - which has also ruined the pacing of getting the story to go smoothly; and the story's still great despite this. I have dropped this game, for now, b/c of this. Andromeda's issue is there's just so much side-stuff and you're always tripping over them, that even w/ its lengthy main campaign, it still feels like I'm some 53 hours in and nowhere close to wrapping any story arcs up. This game ain't even close to done, in any shape of form.

If the side-stuff gets boring or not engaging, well - one could in the old days, avoid it. I did not much for side-quests in The Saboteur, yet had a blast w/ the game and its main-quest...and was able to roll through it by mostly doing main-stuff. These days - with leveling-systems often in games now....eh, might not always be the best idea to avoid side-stuff (if the main-quest ain't scaling with you) and you actually might need to grind so you can actually have a chance in the main-quest.

Sometimes, you do need to grind on the side-stuff, so you can progress in the main-quest. Sometimes, you're even forced to do side-quests before you can even do a real main-quest. While games like Freelancer did this, they never did it at a pace that made you feel like "Yeah, my character/ship is not leveled-up or equipped enough" to tackle the main stuff, when it's time to go take on main-stuff. When they fail at that quite of pacing and fail at tying side-quests (especially meaning-less ones) too much into the leveling-scheme, now I have to grind to get somewhere, even though I don't really want to.

I never completed Batman: Arkham Knight at 100% completion; and I doubt I'll ever reach 100% in Shadow of War (especially since SoW looks like a AC game with Orc-killing in it; and b/c SoM felt like Batman combat mixed w/ AC gameplay, open-world, and quests...so I'd expect SoW to do "more of the same") - so I'll never experience the "true endings" from "earning them" as the dev's & publishers want, hoping I spend money on loot-boxes and what sounds like a purposely padded-the-hell-out kind of game. Two different companies, both in-bed with WB.

I'm calling this now: I see this as just the start and tipping of the iceberg, expecting more greedy AAA companies like EA and Activision might go this route w/ making these interlaced systems of $$-loot boxes, micro-transactions, padding-out open-world games, and hiding endings behind padded-out games just to get the player to spend more time and money with a padded-out game.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Nothing371 said:
Another problem is that everything has become so homogenized too. Borderlands, The Division, Destiny, Mass Effect, Wildlands all combine several of the strongest aspects from RPGs like character stats and loadout micromanagement, along with having a massive world to explore.

Shooters like Call of Duty and Battlefield do similar things too with their character loadouts, paper doll stats, and large worlds. RPG elements and open worlds have become integral parts of most AAA games. Everything starts to feel a bit samey, grindy, and derivative. Certain elements are needed to rise above.

The most memorable games are going to be the ones with strong character development, engaging and webbing plots, or the very best gameplay mechanics. All of the best open world games have incredibly strong suits in one of these main areas. The pantheon of best games will be comprised of things like GTA for its storytelling and diverse gameplay, Zelda for its interactive environment and multiplicative gameplay, RDR and Metal Gear Solid for their interesting characters and plots, or LA Noire for its truly unique gameplay. A lot of the other jack-of-all-trades games (Ubisoft types) are going to be largely forgotten. Ain't nobody got time for that.
Click to expand...
7db.gif


Great post. And since you mentioned it, LA Noire was severely underrated, IMHO; absolutely fantastic w/ its mix of main quests and some side stuff here and there b/t a few of the main missions. With that stuff and especially the investigative "trying to read who you're talking to" thing - it never seemed like LA Noire was getting grindy, too padded-out, or too long.

EDIT:

And that's exactly it. Every open-world game, in the AAA especially, now adds now ARPG elements (character upgrading, skill improving, etc etc). Games and genres that you never saw before using these elements, are now using them. Action games, WWE games (in MyCareer Mode), NBA 2K games (in MyCareer Mode). Even WWE 2K18 and NBA 2K18 now have hubs for the player, as like a sort of home-base (which is often where you upgrade your character).

These games from other genres that are adding also ARPG elements to them are getting grindy & repetitious - often b/c of their lack of variety, lack of improving w/ each iteration, lack of storytelling/writing/character developlement; and/or lack of something special to make stand-out from everything else in the genre and/or previous entries in a series.

EDIT 2:

Syntax Error said:
I dealt with this by realizing that they looked like shitty games and then not buying them :lol:
Click to expand...
IMHO, Mafia 3 and ME:A are good, but not great. They have still yet to capture the magic that previous games in their respective franchises have capture. Namely, ME:A ain't on ME2's level (and I doubt BioWare can ever top ME2 for an actual ME series game); and Mafia 3 isn't on the original Mafia 1's level b/c of M3's repetitive nature that can lead to poorly pacing the outstanding story. M3 often feels like it just takes too damn long to get to the great story & character stuff b/c of all the padded-out and repetitious gameplay that's found in-between.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
If you want to boil it down to its most simplest form, it's hard to navigate your world map and figure out what you're doing, with all that extra clutter.  It's an obvious detraction from the game that is overlooked by the lead directors.  At least put in an option where you can toggle off the various busywork map elements.  It's a glaring production oversight.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't think the issue is optional content in itself, its the repetitivity (probably not a word) of that content.  Some optional fetch quests are alright, but when a game is saturated with them it detracts.  Every open world game has them, but when the majority of the optional quests are variations of 'Go into the forest and pick red berries' its disappointing.

Its like a Mr.D post, occasionally he has great points and if he would keep it to one or two sentences there wouldn't be an issue.  About the 2nd or 3rd time you're reading a giant wall of text + words full of gifs and him repeating himself over and over needlessly you just tend to skip them, not because you want to necessarily but because you have to to keep your sanity.

 
I guess I've never had trouble navigating a map, never really cared about 100% completion in games (certainly not if I wasn't enjoying myself) and never believed that they would have magically shifted the "random map stuff" budget to script writing in Watch Dogs.

But then, since I'm not actually upset about map stuff, I don't really need to argue about it either.  I can be happy with the fact that games don't make me mad with too much content :)

 
Rise of the Tomb Raider was an alright 6-8 hour linear adventure with 15 extra hours of collectathon crap tacked on. You needed to participate in order to upgrade your junk and have a better shot at later enemies, just like with most open world games.

The only OW game i can recall where the collectible junk truly didn’t matter was Mafia II.
 
I don't remember it being a big deal in RotTR but I have 48 hours in the game so I must have been enjoying myself.  I think I did the main quest and then was doing the challenges for a while.

 
People want content, then complain about it since it is filler.

How bout y’all that hate open world games with content filler make your own game?
See how long it takes you to make meaningful non-repetitive missions and such

-.-
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top