Nothing major, just that combat is the default mode of operation for most games, especially AAA games. So I generally trend away from games that are built around combat.
Fair enough and let me tell you: as someone who exclusively plays games where combat is the central mechanic, I wouldn't touch the current crop of AAA games either.
combat as a gameplay mechanic is conceptually uninspired
Like in any game period? Big claim and you're probably not interested in backing it up, but I'm curious.
Dungeon's of Hinterberg seems like a story thing first and foremost though.
IDK, trailer had a good deal of combat—just thought to give you a heads up in case you care about the combat.
Neva is nice if you can pick it up for less than $5.
The combat in Dungeons of Hinterberg bored me really quickly, but it's also a Zelda-like, so if you don't mind the basic combat, maybe give it a shot.
Combat peaked in GoW3 and it's definitely the best western action game, IMO. OG trilogy badly needs a remaster and PC port, which I read is in the works, so that's good.
I liked the freedom of expression GoW3 gave me. Like, you get one opening and you can fuck up the enemy in all sorts of ways in true action game spirit. Really good stuff and more western action games should've followed suit.
IDK where this logic is coming from. PS2, Xbox 360, and older Nintendo consoles are filled with weird games by big companies. Like, yes, they unfortunately moved on from weirdness when gaming became too profitable and that sucks, but falsely glorifying indies like that is just weird.
No ranking, IIRC.
Yeah, but it's a boss gauntlet from an indie developer… the whole point is the boss fights—this is where all the resources went. Everything you demanded above requires more development hours (more money) or better creative choices. For an indie game, pumping money in any place other than your core gameplay experience is not an option most of the time, and poor creative choices aren't always made out of laziness.
You talk like you know they had the resources but decided to "half-ass" it, which's an odd assumption to make about a trivial part of the game. I agree these parts should've been skippable from the get-go, and I understand how frustrating walk-and-talk segments can be in action games and I agree they don't belong there at all, but none of this justifies the cynicism.
Embarrassing thing to say even if the game was actually good.
Could've just said "We tried our best and I'm proud of the game and what our team accomplished." and it wouldn't have sounded needlessly antagonistic.
Ah, man. Capcom bringing back Onimusha and Okami gives me hope we may actually see Viewtiful Joe and God Hand ports one day… unbelievable the pinnacle of beat'em up action is stuck on 2-decade-old hardware.
I agree that I can't talk about genres I'm not familiar with, like platformers and action games
Kudos for acknowledging it.
I cannot really think of any indie action game that came close to Bayonetta, Ninja Gaiden II, God Hand… etc.
That said, I've seen a lot of people claim Hollow Knight is better than Castlevania: SotN, so it's definitely genre-dependent.
I wish they port OG NGII to Steam. Goddamn, that game is awesome.
I was gonna say I'd love to see a Resident Evil action game but then I remembered Onimusha exists 😅 And I suppose RE 4-6 to a lesser extent.
I feel like Signalis maybe half the way to a Resident Evil metroidvania? Like, if you bring the perspective down to 2D and tie all the areas together, you basically have an RE metroidvania.
What about abilities though? In Metroid, the suit gets the abilities, but no one in the RE cast has a suit or is magic, so I assume you unlock weapons instead?