Fine, let’s go with BotW was a bad Zelda game and I strongly disliked it. I tried to like it and played all the way through because I was stubborn, but in the end I think it sucked as did my friends (they all quit long before I did). I wish I hadn’t bought it or spent time in it.
Also, I disagree that it changed the open world landscape. H:ZD released before BoTW did, did the open world stuff better (IMO), and still doesn’t seem like it was radically novel at the time other than the story/setting. The only truly novel thing about BotW was that it was open world in a Zelda game.
I’m shocked that BoTW was considered the top game of the 2010s. I felt BoTW was mediocre over all on top of not feeling like a Zelda game at all. As far as open world games, I felt that Horizon: Zero Dawn was more compelling in both gameplay and story and I’m still not sure I’d rank it as a top game of the decade.
The Dead Cells team definitely has the chop to make a great game, even if I feel it won’t be exactly like an Iga game. That being said, they are likely better off not letting Konami swallow them based on how they have treated their previous star developers. (I’m still pissed about how they treated Kojima).
Also thanks for reminding me about their pachinko obsession. I don’t know why it feel so bizarrely amusing to me, but it does. I just hope they can finally get SOTN ported to PC before they go full pachinko.
I think most Atari 2600 games fell into this trap, not just because they tended to have some of the most awesome covers and lacking tech, but some were just awful ports or phoned in licensed games.
I don’t have many specifically coming to mind, but the Raiders of the Lost Ark game had a really cool cover (still does, but also used to), but the game was an impenetrable mess, both visually and from a game play standpoint. It was quite complex though, so maybe there was something interesting beneath the depths that kid me could never figure out.
Ok, I see where you’re going now, but I’m still not sure I agree with you here overall for the genre.
I think the “add tactics” thing is already done to a degree in these games as early enemies in these games tend to be dead simple since players like likely still acclimating to the game, but I suspect that there is only so much you can do before you end up turning later enemies into some sort of frustrating puzzle. Diablo-likes, for better or worse, aren’t generally mind bending affairs, high skill ceiling affairs.
There is definitely room in the genre for more tactical, skill dependent entries, but I not sure the end result would be as fun for most people as that would be a fundamentally different type game. Hey, maybe I am wrong and this would lead to some sort of souls-like Diablo game where skill and learning are all that matters and items and character building are far less important. Come to think of it, that sounds a lot like Hades in a way.
I’ll be honest here, the theme/vibe put me off enough that I never bothered to download the demo. I’ll give it a shot to see if it is as good as the steam reviews are making it out to be, but the devs need to consider than a couple hundred very positive reviews on a platform with many tens of millions of players doesn’t necessarily mean you’ll get financial success. It could be that the unconventional theme/graphics and novel/unfamiliar gameplay can be a tough sell.
I concur completely. I mean, I like Morrowind quite a bit, but coming from playing 1000 hours in Daggerfall and seeing this tiny simplified, constrained game world in the sequel was disheartening. The fact that everything since has been so much worse in that regard had made Morrowind age pretty well I suppose.
Preach. Daggerfall was the first PC game I got on release. It was the buggiest game I have ever played, and I loved it. Morrowind was such a shock in size and complexity reduction that it took me a while to like it. In retrospect, especially knowing how the following games went, it was great, cliffracers aside.
Finally a use for the Mr Fusion I got off that old Delorean!