• As part of the relaunch of Skullheart, ALL previous threads have been archived. You can find them at the bottom of the forum in the Archives (2021) section. The archives are locked, so please use the new forum sections to create new discussion threads.

Unpopular gaming opinions

Vladislav_Paizis said:
Many SRK guys will say that he's an "important character to the gameplay" because he's supposed to teach new players fundamentals like footsies.
Of course he's important to have around.
You don't have to play him, but every character doesn't have to be super technical... If you're doing that you might as well just put a big sign that says "NO NEW PLAYERS ALLOWED" on the main menu.
 
I think Virtua Fighter needs to be a regular game at EVO, even if Japan would always win.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hadoukie
Not only talking about ryu, yu p4a, superman, aquaman injustice, I heard kazuya was hard in tekken so i guess he's toleratable, umvc3 Vergil, doom, I main morrigan lol, sfxt kazuya, ryu, ken, I kinda used chun li, ummmmm that's all I can think of at the moment lol I own allot of fgs o.o
 
you're talking about the shotos then I guess.

Shotos are fine in fighters. they're like grapplers. a character that can be used that has a moveset almost synonymous to a character from a different fighting game. lots of grapplers play the same.

unless you're one of those guys who likes the grapplers with quartercircle grapple inputs.... you godless heathens.
 
Sanoblaze said:
you're talking about the shotos then I guess.

Shotos are fine in fighters. they're like grapplers. a character that can be used that has a moveset almost synonymous to a character from a different fighting game. lots of grapplers play the same.

unless you're one of those guys who likes the grapplers with quartercircle grapple inputs.... you godless heathens.
Lol no I play mostly females in all my fgs, ask mah manho SonicFox, he knows me well lol. But I just can't stand mainstream ass characters, but grapplers in my opinion can be different. Compare Bella to another grappler lol.
 
OOOOH! well, aside from Yu and Ryu. but yeah, nobody likes it when certain characters are picked soley because they're better. thats why I usually pick characters that people put lower on the tier list.
#LeonaHeider4lyfe

also, bella still has butter churns. so she can stay. but not Kanji. Kanji is a godless grappler who I refuse to play. it just feels wrong to not churn the butter with him... or even a half circle.....
 
Super Mario Bros 3 is better than Super Mario World imo, and is the best Mario game both 2d and 3d.

It's got tons of variety, each world feels unique, the map and all the items do an excellent job of giving it an adventure game/rpg feel, it's challenging and has penalty for failure (all the way back to the beginning of the game in the original nes version), there's so many secrets (even stuff that's not important, like random clouds with items and coins at the top of random stages), and some really subtle and clever game design throughout (I like the way the rarity and specialized nature of a lot of the power up suits gives a unique flavor to each of the worlds).


Super Mario World is good too but imo has less variety, is a lot less hard (outside of the secret world) and has almost no penalty for failure (restart 3 stages if you somehow run out of your ten billion lives). It has some cool secrets, yeah, but they feel more telegraphed and set in place than the random wackiness in Mario 3. Not as many interesting power ups either.


New Super Mario Bros on the DS is the worst of the classic style 2d platformers imo. I didn't even bother playing through the Wii sequel because I found the DS one so bland. Incredibly easy, no penalty for failure, shoe horned in boss fights that take no effort, less variety than Mario 3 or Mario World and less secrets as well. I beat the game in one afternoon and never had much reason to ever go back to it. Maybe if your a speed runner it's a more enjoyable game? I dunno.

I guess you could say that it's technically a better game than Mario 1, but despite how Mario 1 has aged, at least it had penalty for failure to make it something more than a dull snoozefest.

Only reason to buy it IMO is for the Mario Party style mini game mode which is actually kind of fun if you have some friends with DS's, but otherwise you're wasting your money on a game you'll beat in a single day with no emotional reaction whatsoever.


===

Mention of Mario 1 also brings me to another subject: You can use "it was good for its time" as a defense for some games, and while that may be a good defense for the developer, I don't think it's a good defense for the game itself. I was pretty hard on NSMB above, and while you could argue that it would have been less deserving of criticism if it was actually released back in the super nes days, I don't think that would have made it anymore fun or interesting.

At the end of the day, there are games on the nes and super nes that I still replay today, and games that I do not. Yoshi's Island is a colorful and beautiful game, but I see no reason to replay it since there's nothing particularly exciting or interesting about the moment to moment gameplay IMO. Contra 3, Ghouls and Ghosts, Demon's Crest, The Guardian Legend, Castlevania 3, Hagane, etc. are all games that I DO go back every few years or so and take a swing at because they were fun then and they are still fun now. While I'm not going to pretend these games are perfect, I think they would still be worthy of amazing praise if they were released today.
 
Last edited:
Sanoblaze said:
I think Virtua Fighter needs to be a regular game at EVO, even if Japan would always win.

Only in a perfect world
 
oh yeah i forgot a big one

a game's level of difficulty is not directly proportional to its level of quality
There are games out there that are contain levels of difficulty that take the concept of challenge and throw it out the window in favor of rigorously fucking you in the asshole until you die for the umpteenth time and look up a guide

that's not fun or enjoyable
that's poor game design

the moment that a game's difficulty hinders its fun factor is the moment that the experience sours.
Dark Souls is something of an example of this kind of thing. The game has some brilliantly designed boss fights and is genuinely fun experience
but there are some horribly designed boss battles in that game.
The Capra Demon is highest epitome of unfun that I have ever experienced in the entire game. By the end of that fight I had no joy at my victory in the fight, just anger that subsided once I figured that I wouldn't have to deal with such an awful experience again (Demon Ruins don't count those guys were pushovers).
The Bed of Chaos is muddled, tedious mess of a fight that I have considered forgiving due to the time constraints that forced it to be the way it is, but there's no forgiving such an exasperating "fight" such as that
and Gwyn is high and above one of the worst final bosses I have ever had the displeasure of encountering. Not because he's too hard, but rather because he's either too hard, or far too easy. When the only reliable way to get damage on the final boss removes any ounce of challenge and fun out of what is supposed to be the ultimate test of your abilities, then that's shit. When the only alternative to that only reliable damage source is a tedious trudge of rolling and the occasional swing, then that's shit.

I suppose this is the mini-Dark Souls rant, but yeah. difficulty doesn't equal quality
 
I didn't find Capra Demon that bad. He was hard and fun for me, but didn't take more than a few tries solo. Hit and run the dogs and get them out of the way near the start of the fight, run away/roll away when he charges up the unblockable, and for the rest just strafe with shield up and try to dodge and punish.

Also just because a challenge beats you up "for the upteenth time" doesn't mean it's poorly designed. It's not the game designers job to make sure you win, it's the game designers job to make sure you can win. As long as everything is telegraphed well, and the challenges are within human ability (no unreactionable mix ups or anything), than it seems fine to me. I think the more important question is: Is the design of the fight fun to begin with?

Also personally, just being difficult never makes me mad at a game as far as I know. It's like PJ said about when he loses when speed running Super Ghouls and Ghosts "I love the game so much that I'm never mad no matter what happens." If a game is really enjoyable to me, than it's enjoyable even when I'm losing. Same goes for fighting games.

But yeah, it's true that difficulty =/= better. If that were true, Mushihimesama-Futari on Ultra mode would be the greatest game ever made, hands down.

-

Anyway, I personally think that all games should have multiple selectable difficulty levels (in a perfect world, at least).

I remember once hearing an indie developer say he wouldn't put selectable difficulty levels in his games because he wanted everything tailored to "one experience" or something like that. But the problem is that it won't be tailored to everyone, and everyone won't have that same experience. Like I said in the OP, some people have become deluded into thinking that skill doesn't exist and everything is just trial and error/memorization, and it's just not true. Reflexes, execution, timing, precision, multitasking, awareness, etc. etc. all do improve and become more consistent the more you play and the harder you push yourself. I know people who have completed some of the hardest challenges I've ever faced (and still haven't beat) on their first try. It's just that it's very difficult to gauge how much you've improved since improvement is subtle and takes place over a period of years, and most multiplayer games have a greater emphasis on reading the opponent while single player games get a bad rap for prioritizing trial and error.

So yeah, I think selectable difficulties are the way to go, because what is "normal" or even "hard" for one person may very well be a cakewalk (or eventually become a cakewalk) for someone else. Of course obviously, not all developers have the time and money for finely tuning and balancing such a thing.
 
Last edited:
I think people are too harsh on the dynasty warriors/musou games.

yeah they're repetitive, but I can't think of a better game for blowing off steam than the series where you can juggle and destroy enemies even if you're just mashing because you're that mad. also, I think Zelda Musou is gonna be super great.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sanger Zonvolt
Does anyone else find the Elder Scrolls series (or at least Oblivion and Skyrim) really not good? I remember hearing all these good things about Oblivion so I went out and bought it, but it was really bad. More than half the time was spent walking, the main campaign had no allure, there were only like 4 types of enemies or something equally ridiculous, the side quests were all the same, there were like 2 voice actors, no way I'm wasting my time reading books in a video game (like actually wtf, I understand you want to build your world but please etch important lore in the actual game, and not just shoe-horn it in as its raw format) and the worst part is that all that time I spent walking was the most enjoyable part of it (and holy balls the combat is stale).

Then I got Skyrim (for free might I add, as some promotional offer for the Xbox 360 Slim that my friend didn't want), and it was notably better, but a lot of the major problems were still there; very samey, stale combat, more time than not spent walking, BOOKS!!!, sucky sidequests (although there were a few more interesting ones). It feels like it's just a few steps away from being a good game (fix combat, make AI more diverse; it seems like there are just 3 types of AI behaviour in normal enemies which makes combat exceptionally boring). After they get that down they can work on polishing things (better world design, or at least better at showing the designs without using BOOKS, more magic types, juicier weapons, more variation in sidequests, etc.) and I think it would be a game I could sit down and not feel disappointed with.

It's such a shame since there aren't many open world fantasy games that do what The Elder Scrolls tries to, and it would be nice to have something that pulls it off well.

(also please get programmers that know what they're doing yes thank you)
 
Squire Grooktook said:
I remember once hearing an indie developer say he wouldn't put selectable difficulty levels in his games because he wanted everything tailored to "one experience" or something like that.
Dude who said that is a pussy. I always play Journey on Traveler Must Die mode.

Sanoblaze said:
I think people are too harsh on the dynasty warriors/musou games.

yeah they're repetitive, but I can't think of a better game for blowing off steam than the series where you can juggle and destroy enemies even if you're just mashing because you're that mad. also, I think Zelda Musou is gonna be super great.
True that. Sometimes ya just need a game to feel like a badass and those do the trick. Personally, I'm a Basara guy which while not "hard", is not a mashing game by any margin but the idea stands - it's that kind of game where we almost invariably always feel good about our performance. And sometimes that's what we need...especially after a long, gruesome session of Journey on Traveler Must Die mode. :3
 
Squire Grooktook said:
I didn't find Capra Demon that bad. He was hard and fun for me, but didn't take more than a few tries solo. Hit and run the dogs and get them out of the way near the start of the fight, run away/roll away when he charges up the unblockable, and for the rest just strafe with shield up and try to dodge and punish.
Refer to the Gwyn section. Dark Souls is a game with tons of nonlinearity and viable builds that forcing you into a single strategy just goes against what I felt the design philosophy was.
Putting a fight that involved split second decisions and reflex in a game about patience and observation just didn't feel right.
The Taurus Demon was a good example tbh. Charging in guns blazing will get you pasted on the ground, but taking the time to recognize the terrain will make the fight a lot easier.
With Capra, you need to IMMEDIATELY book it and hope the dogs aren't faster or else you'll need to clean yourself up again.
 
Ruin said:
Putting a fight that involved split second decisions and reflex in a game about patience and observation just didn't feel right.

I really don't think these two conflict though. You can easily design a game that involves a more slower methodical pace and have quick reactions from time to time.

See: Image Fight, Radiant Silvergun, Volgarr The Viking, Castlevania (classic series), R-Type.

I'd say Ghouls and Ghosts due to the limiting jump physics, but I honestly think that game is extremely fast paced and focused almost entirely on reflexes.
 
Horseman said:
Street Fighter: This one gets a free pass because every time there's actually a new game, it's more like a design/technological update than a new game.
SF4 is just Third Strike with 3d graphics? Am I reading this correctly?

boomgoesthemite said:
I hate overused and easy to use characters *COUGH RYU COUGH*
Overused as a word implies that it's bad, so this doesn't make too much sense as an 'unpopular opinion'. If anything, you could say "I think Ryu is overused".
Aside from that, I don't know what exactly is so 'easy to use' about Ryu? Verrrrry~ curious
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vladislav_Paizis
I think people should play the characters that they find the most fun, since they'll be the most enthusiastic about learning them and getting better.

On the other hand, while I can understand picking a top tier character for the sake of being top tier (as utilitarian as it is), picking a low tier character for the sake of being low tier sounds very silly to me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DawnHibiki
Squire Grooktook said:
I think people should play the characters that they find the most fun, since they'll be the most enthusiastic about learning them and getting better.

On the other hand, while I can understand picking a top tier character for the sake of being top tier (as utilitarian as it is), picking a low tier character for the sake of being low tier sounds very silly to me.
Exactly what I was thinking.
You have no idea how many people I see play well with good characters, but insist to play badly with their low tier character and then complain when they lose.
 
IsaVulpes said:
Overused as a word implies that it's bad, so this doesn't make too much sense as an 'unpopular opinion'. If anything, you could say "I think Ryu is overused".
Aside from that, I don't know what exactly is so 'easy to use' about Ryu? Verrrrry~ curious
I'll be completely honest with you I have never played a good ryu, most ryus I play mash lp and then goes for a sweep.. Tf. I've played one good ryu and he had all kinds of tech and fadc combos and all that jazz lol but otherwise I just hate the fact that everyone uses him and he's just so.. Ewish. I main yang so I have problems with allot of things but ryu, All he needs is shoryuken and he'll be fine lol.
 
I'm a mid-low-tier hero if that makes sense. I play Marvel 3, and I can't use the higher tier characters because I feel like I'm cheating. I don't know a single combo with Vergil, I just copy all of the bullshit other Virgil players do to me and I win, and that's not really any fun to me. I usually just go with characters I like and stick with them regardless of tier though. Plus being able to say I beat a tournament level Magneto with Hsien-Ko is pretty great. I don't really pay much attention to tier in general unless it has a serious balance problem.

But I feel like the majority of games released are a little bit too easy to start off with. I don't mean to say they're too easy in general, but that their "Normal" difficulty should actually be the "easy" difficulty. I don't really get anything out of beating something like an Action game that I feel like I'm playing Beyond Two Souls, y'know?
 
I think Jade Empire is one of the better pre-Mass Effect Bioware Games.
 
I think people underestimate the roll of reflexes in fighting games.

I've noticed a lot of relatively knowledgeable players downplay the role of reactions in fighting games, however I think this is the result of a very narrow view of what "reflexes are". If you only think of reflexes as dp'ing jumps, hit confirming, blocking an overhead, and other black and white all or nothing situations, than yeah. But that's not all reactions are about. Reactions basically amount to quick thinking and action and processing information quickly, so having quick reactions can really aid you in every phase of the game.

Seeing your opponent backed up a little in the footsie game and changing your positioning accordingly, that's a reaction, etc. etc. I don't think you really can play at that very fast paced level of footsies if you don't have quick reactions. Simply processing information in itself is a reaction, which is integral to keeping up with the kind of game played at a high level IMO.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: DawnHibiki and juju_for_president
I think Daisy needs her own game.

EDIT: I don't see why people whine about how hard Sonic Riders was. Same applies to MK7, etc.
 
Fuck indie games. This might sound strange on a skullgirls site but hear me out. When I say indie games I don't mean games from small developers like Skullgirls is, I mean games that try to be 'retro' and look like SNES games because they don't have any artists skilled enough to make anything better, and/or claim to be 'artistic' and 'deep' because they try to substitute 'meaning' for actual mechanical depth.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mooncakes, guypercinn, Sanger Zonvolt and 1 other person
I'll admit that I haven't played Nidhogg yet and my opinion might change because of gameplay, but I hate its artstyle. I don't mind retro graphics in the style of the 90's SEGA Megadrive/SNES games, but Atari-style graphics are an eyesore to me (Then again I was born in 1989). I tried watching videos of it like Maximilian's and some footage from a tourney that I can't remember, but I don't really find it hype.
 
Effay said:
Fuck indie games. This might sound strange on a skullgirls site but hear me out. When I say indie games I don't mean games from small developers like Skullgirls is, I mean games that try to be 'retro' and look like SNES games because they don't have any artists skilled enough to make anything better, and/or claim to be 'artistic' and 'deep' because they try to substitute 'meaning' for actual mechanical depth.
i can relate in a sense, but with the low-budget jrpgs. i've seen trailers and walkthroughs of some NISA's games (the ones that were not developed from N1) and was not impressed. no way i'll be caught dead playing them.

also as much as i tried to get into odin sphere, the gameplay was so exhausting that it drained the little interest i had to complete it.
 
Last edited:
Effay said:
Fuck indie games. This might sound strange on a skullgirls site but hear me out. When I say indie games I don't mean games from small developers like Skullgirls is, I mean games that try to be 'retro' and look like SNES games because they don't have any artists skilled enough to make anything better, and/or claim to be 'artistic' and 'deep' because they try to substitute 'meaning' for actual mechanical depth.

It's called a budget, something that indie devs have to keep under. Rarely does a lot of money go to the art/graphics in indie games because they can get away with retro-style graphics and try to focus on the gameplay. Skullgirls only looks as good as it does because it had something most indie devs do not: a publisher. If indies had all the money in the world to make their games, there wouldn't be nearly as many retro-style games as there are.
 
Crayolan said:
It's called a budget, something that indie devs have to keep under. Rarely does a lot of money go to the art/graphics in indie games because they can get away with retro-style graphics and try to focus on the gameplay. Skullgirls only looks as good as it does because it had something most indie devs do not: a publisher. If indies had all the money in the world to make their games, there wouldn't be nearly as many retro-style games as there are.
then if they have to use more 8-16 bit graphics because the dont have the budget to do more, THEN THEY SHOULD BE HONEST ABOUT IT! dont say its trying to be art, dont try to be "oh, its a nod to old school games", dont do anything but BE HONEST!
 
Sanoblaze said:
then if they have to use more 8-16 bit graphics because the dont have the budget to do more, THEN THEY SHOULD BE HONEST ABOUT IT! dont say its trying to be art, dont try to be "oh, its a nod to old school games", dont do anything but BE HONEST!

Well, some are being honest. They really are trying to emulate an old school game series. Most are not and use it as a bullshit excuse. And a very select few are no bullshit and tell you up front "we have no money so here's whatcha get."
 
the problem is that people shouldnt be saying its art when its not the actual reason in the first place. like, hyper light drifter, that is art since its taking the 8-16-bit style and making something truly beautiful with it! I've just become so jaded by most indie games that use an 8-16 bit style and try to say they're making a statement with it, even though they never do anything innovative with it.
 
Effay said:
Fuck indie games. This might sound strange on a skullgirls site but hear me out. When I say indie games I don't mean games from small developers like Skullgirls is, I mean games that try to be 'retro' and look like SNES games because they don't have any artists skilled enough to make anything better, and/or claim to be 'artistic' and 'deep' because they try to substitute 'meaning' for actual mechanical depth.
You have an incredibly poor definition of "indie game."
Also, you've been playing some weird non-existent games, because I'm a huge fan of quote unquote artistic games (because it's not like they're actually art or anything, right? I mean that would be crazy.) and I've never played a game that's both trying to be artistic/meaningful/etc and playing the nintendo nostalgia card at the same time. Maybe starseed pilgrim or papers please or cart life if you have a loose definition of nostalgia... Maybe sword and sworcery kind of, although I don't put it in my artistic and deep and meaningful schema.
Oh, hotline miami kind of sort of. There's one. Although it definitely has mechanical depth.

Sanoblaze said:
then if they have to use more 8-16 bit graphics because the dont have the budget to do more, THEN THEY SHOULD BE HONEST ABOUT IT! dont say its trying to be art, dont try to be "oh, its a nod to old school games", dont do anything but BE HONEST!
But it can still be a reference to old school games, even if it's there because of budget?
Plus that's not the sort of thing you're obligated to come out and tell everyone. It's not like they need to put out a disclaimer or something that says "we're poor!" That's not some headline news for all of your customers when they probably care more about the quality of the game, and a declaration of your socioeconomic status at the time of the game's creation and how it made the game worse is definitely not helping anyone. They're not dishonest about it, if you asked them what their budget was they would probably tell you that it was piss poor, but if you ask them why something is in the game get prepared for them to tell you all of its pros rather than an excuse as to why it was included at all.
The other thing is that, most of the time, if there are pixel graphics but it's not about nostalgia, the graphics are simplistic. They're not giving you nice things to look at so that you can pay attention to something else. Good games will play off of the simplicity of the graphics, not stuff it on top of a game that they wanted better art but pixel art is cheap. Does that mean that the reason they chose the artstyle isn't because it's cheap? No, that means they make the best of the situation and use it to better the game. Make a list of all the things you HAVE to do to the game for budget or whatever, and figure out how you can play off of their strengths and minimize their weaknesses.

Sanoblaze said:
the problem is that people shouldnt be saying its art when its not the actual reason in the first place.
You keep saying that they can't "say it's art."
I can't tell if you're saying that (bad) pixel graphics aren't art, or that games with pixel graphics aren't art, or what. I don't think you mean either of those things but it's still confusing as fuck as to what you're trying to say.
 
I'm not saying that they can't make art. like, I fuckin' said Hyper Light Drifter is definitely art with it's design. like, theres a difference between claiming something is art and doing something actually artistic.

like, theres nothing wrong with making a game that doesnt have amazing graphics and bringing more attention to the gameplay than the way it looks. I mean look at Nidhogg. thats a great game and the graphics in that game look like an atari console game. theres nothing wrong with saying "we dont have the budget to make something that looks spectacular" if the game plays well.
 
There are a FEW games with somewhat subpar pixel art claiming to be retro that I like. They Bleed Pixels is full of this (admittedly, the animation is fluid and some of the backgrounds are nice, but after a while you realize that every environmental object is basically a black square), but I'd still say it's the best platformer I've ever played on PC (except Rogue Legacy but I'm not sure if I should count that as a platformer).

But yeah, like I said, I think the developers should just be honest about why they choose that art style. I know it's a minor complaint (marketing not gameplay), but it is annoying and an annoying part of the indie medium.

Hyper Light Drifter art looks great though.

Also I wish to see more 16 bit super nes style sprite art. I think it looks very attractive and has a nice balance between actual art and the utilitarian nature of most sprites.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Vladislav_Paizis, DawnHibiki, BZ Choy and 1 other person
You want an unpopular gaming opinion? Here's one for you!

I liked Duke Nukem Forever.
 
I absolutely agree about what has been said about Skyrim. I wanna help bash on it because it's the epitome of what I hate in video games: Vast open landscapes with stupid amounts of emptyness and travel times and not alot to do (except dumb sidequests), a shit ton of reading, and having just too much content to keep track of. It's an incredibly dull buggy mess with combat that is a complete joke (you can never tell if you're even hitting anything, not to mention the animation is laughable at best, especially when the game tries to be all badass and your character does those finishing moves and bugs out half the time.)

By extension, I hate JRPGs and Final Fantasy. I enjoy the older ones alot more than the newer ones, but still, not an RPG guy. I can play an RPG up until like the first boss or so, then I just fall out of it.

Ninja Gaiden 2 on Xbox 360 (not Sigma 2, that homogenized piece of garbage) is the best action game out there, better than Devil May Cry, better than God of War, despite its stroke inducing difficulty and admitted occasional cheapness. It has the most fun, deepest, most finely tuned and most satisfying combat of any game I've ever had the pleasure of playing.
 
Last edited:
guypercinn said:
I absolutely agree about what has been said about Skyrim. I wanna help bash on it because it's the epitome of what I hate in video games: Vast open landscapes with stupid amounts of emptyness and travel times and not alot to do (except dumb sidequests), a shit ton of reading, and having just too much content to keep track of. It's an incredibly dull buggy mess with combat that is a complete joke (you can never tell if you're even hitting anything, not to mention the animation is laughable at best, especially when the game tries to be all badass and your character does those finishing moves and bugs out half the time.)

By extension, I hate JRPGs and Final Fantasy. I enjoy the older ones alot more than the newer ones, but still, not an RPG guy. I can play an RPG up until like the first boss or so, then I just fall out of it.
I completely understand why people dislike tes as a series. It's definitely not for everyone.
With elder scrolls games (and fallout too) it takes a lot of focus off of combat among other things to just let you kind of exist in this fantasy world. They're fantastic single player role playing experiences and shitty combat simulators, so if you open one up for the sake of gratifying violence, you're going to be very very very disappointed. While I would defend that the combat isn't the worst it's not very good either. Even fallout, which adopts what should be a straight-forward well tested shooter formula ends up with not so great combat.
Although...
1.) Skyrim isn't very empty; it's obviously not literally full of shit because it is meant to be somewhat slower paced, but I can't say that I ever walk around for more than ~5 minutes without finding something interesting. You can definitely never take a quest and still have plenty to explore and do.
2.) I have heavy mods on skyrim... I think just short of 200 mods? Which admittedly, games that need that many mods to be the best they can be are a little bit troublesome so I understand why some people dislike that, but the skyrim I play is a hyper-realistic survival simulation with an in-depth economy and hundreds of unique creatures/enemies and 1000+ unique spells plus in-game spell making and like 5 continents to explore so I'm pretty sure that plays a part in my enjoyment of skyrim. If I were still playing vanilla I probably would have played 30-40 hours max before dropping it.
3.) Pretty much all reading is optional, I think that having the option to read what is probably at this point like 1000 pages of short stories set in tamriel kind of cool but I don't sit around reading the whole game. Unless you mean dialogue, in which case turn off the subtitles like everyone else did 5 minutes into the game.
4.) How can you not tell if you're hitting something? The combat still isn't great but I've never felt like the hit-detection was off at all.

Although, what's with the comparison to JRPG's? Skyrim is pretty much the opposite of a JRPG (as far as the RPG genre goes.)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back