What Are You Currently Playing? 6.65: Neighbor of the Beast

[Dr. Insomniac]

I watched a little of a Persona 5 LP before it was taken down, and the dialogue made perfect sense. I don't know what he's talking about.

[Foggle]

The translation is kind of poor to be honest. There's only one line I can think of that legitimately doesn't make sense, but it's full of awkward grammar and the English VA suffers because many lines don't sound like something an actual human would say. Still, Burch is an idiot, and his personal localization would probably be far worse.

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

Excellent. I will still defend that game on my deathbed. It's got some glaring flaws, but it's one of the most intense, memorable, and unique games I've played. A lot of people criticized TEW for having similar gameplay to The Last of Us, but having played both almost back to back, Evil Within at worst took those mechanics and made them far deeper and more fun. While I found TLOU frustrating and at times plodding on Normal difficulty, TEW's Survival mode was an exceptional test of skill that rarely annoyed me despite my 100+ deaths. Definition of a flawed masterpiece in my book.

The funny thing is that I'm actually currently playing The Last of Us Remastered, and it's pretty hilarious how poorly designed the enemy AI is, and how now so called "professional" game journalists ever managed to notice or point it out. Good video game YouTubers like Hyper Bit Hero and Atrophy of Soul did really good videos explaining all of the holes in TLOU's gameplay mechanics, and while being completely fair and not bashing the game for the sake of bashing it. Both of them concluded that it was a good game but nowhere near the masterpiece that it was being made out to be. It's sad how many people just blindly flamed HBH on that video without any real backing for their points. I saw people refuting his points saying that he was crazy and the enemy design was perfect, despite the fact that he literally had tons of footage as solid evidence proving otherwise. For those who don't know, TLOU's so-called "smart" enemy AI is really only programmed to naturally gravitate towards your location once you get in proximity to them. If you move into a building that they are not currently occupying, then all of a sudden guys will start moving in their as well because the enemy AI technically knows exactly where you are, but can't attack you until you directly move into an enemy's programmed field of vision. That in itself is not actual smart design in the same way that a game like F.E.A.R. has dynamic enemy AI that is programmed to react in various different ways depending on what you do and how you move around the environment. That said, this would be fine on its own if it didn't lead to the enemies being super exploitable in some areas, whereas they can be frustratingly unfair in others. I've had times where I throw bottles or bricks in areas pretty close to certain enemies and they don't react to it in the slightest because the game's shoddy programming didn't register that as making a sound that the AI would notice. It's really weird and unrefined in that way. Additionally, there are sections that are set up to make it seem like you could stealth the whole way through without coming in contact with any enemies, but in reality you have to physically take everyone out either by stealth kills or alerting them into a straight-on firefight. That literally kills the whole point of having a stealth section in the first place if you aren't even given the option to get through it without killing.

The Last of Us is a decent game, overall. Despite my distaste for movie games, I do find some genuinely good qualities about it, and as I said, it's miles better than any Uncharted game which are some of the most trite, overly-scripted drivel that I've ever experienced, but these are nowhere near the perfect games that gaming media has made it out to be, and people with an actual grasp on how gameplay mechanics actually work can at least see its apparent flaws. It just drives me up the wall that every single thing that this game doesn't get right just gets swept under the rug by so many people, yet other games that get a lot right get harped on for smaller issues than this game has. It just really rubs me the wrong way.

Yeah, I really struggled to get through AC. I basically just ignored all the side quests after a certain point because they were so bland. The level design and writing were a huge step down from Asylum and I think the main story is actually shorter than AA.

The side quests in AC are among the laziest pieces of game design that I have ever seen. It literally just reuses familiar locations and enemies, and hardly if ever actually remixes anything to a substantial degree. All you do is even simpler versions of stuff that you have already done in the main missions of the game, and you don't even get any unique boss fights out of the whole endeavor. I remember that I was looking forward to fighting people like Zsasz, Deadshot, and Bane at the end of their respective side quests, but nope, all we got were uninspired stealth encounters (or in Bane's case just a lame cut-scene) and they were all dealt with. I remember how Darksiders 2 had its own completely separate dungeons with their own bosses for its big side-quests. Additionally, playing a game like Nioh shows the right way to recycle content without actually making it feel recycled. The sub-missions completely remix the main mission levels, literally changing up the geography of the locations that you visit, having you fight completely different sets of enemies and only really reusing the general aesthetics of the level that you've been through before. Additionally, having actual combat depth doesn't make it feel like a chore to keep on fighting through similar areas as it is. Arkham games don't even have that, so it baffles me how the Arkham City developers thought that they could get away with such lazy design....but jokes on me, I guess, because they totally did. Once again, people just seemed to eat this crap up, and it really just baffles me how such a mediocre action game gets praised as such a masterpiece of the genre. It deserves it even less than something like TLOU, which at least had a fully fleshed out story to go through and some interesting mechanics beyond a base level.

The most annoying thing about this is that I would easily take Devil May Cry's stories over God of War's any day. Dante, even at his most boring (DMC2) and immature (DMC4) is still miles more charismatic than Kratos. He's a lovable character with a great design and that alone makes him fun to play. Same with Vergil, Trish, Lady, Nero, even Lucia - they're all fantastic.

Devil May Cry's characters are what make the stories so enjoyable for me. The stories themselves are pretty generic, uninspired, action-game fluff. But the dynamic between Dante in Vergile in DMC3, or setting up Nero with a soap-opera of a story only for Dante to come in half-way into the game and completely make light of the serious tone are stuff that make these games so entertaining and full of personality. Too bad a lot of people seemed to just want ass-hole main characters with shallow combat that made them feel like a bad-ass, because that's what we got with DmC (which for what it's worth, I still prefer to any God of War game).

Gaming Brit also recently uploaded a feature-length video about the Ratchet & Clank remake vs. the original. A lot of people might find it rather nitpicky, but his criticisms of the story, overall style, and current trajectory of the series are spot on. Aside from the lazy reusing of PS3-era weapons yet again, I highly disagree with him about the gameplay being underwhelming and too easy, as I find it to be around the same level of difficulty on Hard mode as the PS2 game, and I think it has some of the most satisfying shooting in any TPS, but his other points really echo my own thoughts on it.

The part that got to me the most from that review: "How does a script written by professional Hollywood writers have less heart, charm, and character than one written by some game devs over a decade ago?" [Paraphrased]. I think that actually says it all. Games like the new Ratchet and Clank are filtered through a mundane "by the books" writing process that is nothing more than going by what some high-up executives want put in the game based on what they think their target demographic wants to see. When a game is written by game devs who actually know the kind of game that they want to make and the tone and general message that they want to go for with their story, even with the most sloppily told narratives you'll still get something with a lot more wit and entertainment value that actually fits the medium that it's based in (once again, this is what made the classic Devil May Cry stories so enjoyable).

Interestingly enough, I was considering getting this game since I wanted to opportunity to get into Ratchet and Clank and a remake of the original seemed to be the best way to go. After seeing TGBS's review, I can say that it'll be worth it for me to wait until I can seek out and play the original game first. I can still come back to this one eventually, but I'm more interested in seeing the developer's original vision before it got processed through big-budget, greedy, corporate, money-grubbing hands.

[Spark Of Spirit]

I still say the gameplay in the remake of R&C is better than the original. Story-wise, I don't think either are particularly good but I don't play these games for their stories so it doesn't matter to me. I do think it's a good introduction to the series and really the only R&C experience you can get this gen.

[Daxdiv]

Tried playing Parappa the Rapper Remastered on the PS4 and yikes does this game suffer from a bit of lag, which is what you don't want in a rhythm game. My timing is off thanks to this that I keep failing the Chicken level. Note, I played this game as a kid on the PS1 and I remembered not sucking hard on that level. Also played a bit of Overwatch Uprising maps. Not a bad event Blizzard put out for everyone.

As for the Ratchet & Clank 2016, Yeah the game play was solid but the story does lack a charm that the original games had. That was probably the only thing I didn't like was how Ratchet & Clank didn't play off each other. Even I remember when in RC2 even when they toned down Ratchet's jerkass tendencies, him and Clank still delivered on the bantz, here I barely remembered them talking to each other other than in the game play.

[Foggle]

TLOU's so-called "smart" enemy AI is really only programmed to naturally gravitate towards your location once you get in proximity to them. If you move into a building that they are not currently occupying, then all of a sudden guys will start moving in their as well because the enemy AI technically knows exactly where you are, but can't attack you until you directly move into an enemy's programmed field of vision. That in itself is not actual smart design in the same way that a game like F.E.A.R. has dynamic enemy AI that is programmed to react in various different ways depending on what you do and how you move around the environment. That said, this would be fine on its own if it didn't lead to the enemies being super exploitable in some areas, whereas they can be frustratingly unfair in others. I've had times where I throw bottles or bricks in areas pretty close to certain enemies and they don't react to it in the slightest because the game's shoddy programming didn't register that as making a sound that the AI would notice. It's really weird and unrefined in that way. Additionally, there are sections that are set up to make it seem like you could stealth the whole way through without coming in contact with any enemies, but in reality you have to physically take everyone out either by stealth kills or alerting them into a straight-on firefight. That literally kills the whole point of having a stealth section in the first place if you aren't even given the option to get through it without killing.

This is like... I mean, I'm not the best at games or anything. I don't pretend to be particularly skilled - my hand-eye coordination and anxiety issues mean I'll never be in the upper echelon of players capable of beating Dante Must Die in DMC3 or entering the Top 500 in Overwatch's ranked mode. But there was something about TLOU's gameplay that just felt wrong to me. The stealth seemed totally busted while the constant one-hit kills and poor shooting mechanics turned the entire first half of the game into an exercise in frustration for me. Meanwhile, TEW, which features almost exactly the same mechanics, I found incredibly fluid & (mostly) well-designed. I probably died over 100 times in both, but only one felt fair to me, and it was the one most reviewers criticized for being "too hard."

To say nothing of TLOU's literal hours of forced walking segments. Lord have mercy, I don't think I've ever been so annoyed at a game not letting me play it. It basically has no replay value because the first 2-3 hours are little more than an interactive cutscene, which is tiresome even on the first playthrough.

The side quests in AC are among the laziest pieces of game design that I have ever seen. It literally just reuses familiar locations and enemies, and hardly if ever actually remixes anything to a substantial degree. All you do is even simpler versions of stuff that you have already done in the main missions of the game, and you don't even get any unique boss fights out of the whole endeavor. I remember that I was looking forward to fighting people like Zsasz, Deadshot, and Bane at the end of their respective side quests, but nope, all we got were uninspired stealth encounters (or in Bane's case just a lame cut-scene) and they were all dealt with.

Glad I just gave up, then. Wasn't there supposed to be something special with the Riddler if you somehow had to patience to collect all 5000 of his trophies?

Devil May Cry's characters are what make the stories so enjoyable for me. The stories themselves are pretty generic, uninspired, action-game fluff. But the dynamic between Dante in Vergile in DMC3, or setting up Nero with a soap-opera of a story only for Dante to come in half-way into the game and completely make light of the serious tone are stuff that make these games so entertaining and full of personality. Too bad a lot of people seemed to just want ass-hole main characters with shallow combat that made them feel like a bad-ass, because that's what we got with DmC (which for what it's worth, I still prefer to any God of War game).

I played the demo of DmC and I thought the gameplay was okay. I think I liked it more than GoW as well. The writing and music were among the worst I've ever encountered in a game, but at its core it seems like a fun little diversion. Would've been way better with the real Dante and Vergil, though...

The part that got to me the most from that review: "How does a script written by professional Hollywood writers have less heart, charm, and character than one written by some game devs over a decade ago?" [Paraphrased]. I think that actually says it all. Games like the new Ratchet and Clank are filtered through a mundane "by the books" writing process that is nothing more than going by what some high-up executives want put in the game based on what they think their target demographic wants to see. When a game is written by game devs who actually know the kind of game that they want to make and the tone and general message that they want to go for with their story, even with the most sloppily told narratives you'll still get something with a lot more wit and entertainment value that actually fits the medium that it's based in (once again, this is what made the classic Devil May Cry stories so enjoyable).

Right! For instance, the original Resident Evil, written by random game developers and hastily translated into English - awful story, just terrible, but it's so lovable and fun. It was stupid, but I genuinely cared about what was going on and thought it complemented the gameplay well. Then we have Resident Evil: Revelations, written by an actual screenwriter behind several fantastic episodes of Cowboy Bebop (among other things) - insufferable, horrendously bad writing. The story and dialogue are so bad that they actively make the entire experience worse. And finally we have Resident Evil 7, written by someone experienced with writing video game narratives - the plot is still kind of stupid, but it's legitimately one of the funniest and creepiest games I've ever played, beautifully serving the gameplay by making the story scenes feel like rewards for progression. Somehow the industry still hasn't learned that video game writing is its own unique art form and requires a certain finesse that can't be obtained by copy-pasting movie-style narrative formats and directing into arduous cutscenes & forced walking sequences. Obsidian's writers understand this. Yoko Taro and his co-writers understand this. But I'm not sure anyone else in the mainstream space does, and even very few indies do.

Interestingly enough, I was considering getting this game since I wanted to opportunity to get into Ratchet and Clank and a remake of the original seemed to be the best way to go. After seeing TGBS's review, I can say that it'll be worth it for me to wait until I can seek out and play the original game first. I can still come back to this one eventually, but I'm more interested in seeing the developer's original vision before it got processed through big-budget, greedy, corporate, money-grubbing hands.

I would still highly recommend playing the new game as it's a lot of fun and has some of the most beautiful graphics I've ever seen, but if you want to take a chance on the original Ratchet & Clank, I'd say go for it! Keep in mind that the shooting controls have not aged gracefully by any means, so you may end up hating it, but it's my most beloved childhood game (along with its sequel) and the main series will probably always be my favorite in all of gaming.

Since Sony is re-releasing the Jak & Daxter games on PS4 despite a PS3 HD Collection existing, someday you might actually get the chance to play the original R&C trilogy without picking up a PS2 or PS3! I'm holding out hope for them to announce perfect ports of the classics and maybe even remasters of the Future saga at E3. That would make my gaming year even more than Nier Automata and Yooka-Laylee already have!

I still say the gameplay in the remake of R&C is better than the original. Story-wise, I don't think either are particularly good but I don't play these games for their stories so it doesn't matter to me. I do think it's a good introduction to the series and really the only R&C experience you can get this gen.

The shooting and Clank gameplay are miles better in the remake, but I think the original has better platforming due to its camera placement and jump height/physics. Also, the PS2 version has way more levels, with some of the best ones not making the cut. The story of the original game isn't great, but the world and characters are a lot more developed and there aren't any cringy meme jokes. Plus there's a nice element of social satire that I never really noticed as a kid. Overall, I'd say both are strong packages with some noticeable flaws keeping them from being as great as GC, UYA, and ACIT, but because I can tolerate the extremely clunky/outdated shooting mechanics (and have nostalgia) I definitely prefer the original.

Also played a bit of Overwatch Uprising maps. Not a bad event Blizzard put out for everyone.

I still need to check that out. Most of my friends have grown tired of Overwatch and I don't like solo queue so a dedicated PVE mode going forward would make me very happy. Helps that it includes my two favorite characters (Torbjorn and Tracer).

As for the Ratchet & Clank 2016, Yeah the game play was solid but the story does lack a charm that the original games had.

To be honest, I feel like that's been a problem since the PS3 days - it was only exasperated by the rushed nature of this script and its ties to the film. Only Quest For Booty and A Crack In Time really live up to the PS2 games in terms of charm/writing IMO. Nothing against the guy, as he seems like a cool person and came up with an excellent script for ACIT, but I'm kind of glad the writer behind everything beginning with ToD has stepped away from the series now. I'd like to see more goofy one-off adventures filled with adult jokes and cartoon antics like the PS2 games in the future.

That was probably the only thing I didn't like was how Ratchet & Clank didn't play off each other. Even I remember when in RC2 even when they toned down Ratchet's jerkass tendencies, him and Clank still delivered on the bantz, here I barely remembered them talking to each other other than in the game play.

Both Into The Nexus and the remake seem weirdly against having Ratchet and Clank speak to each other except when absolutely necessary. It really takes something away from it being a series of buddy games.

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

Speaking of bad enemy design in The Last of Us, man was that sniper segment atrocious. Firstly, there seemed to be no definitive space of time for him to take to reload, so even if I dashed for the next spot of cover the instant after he fired a shot, he could literally fire on my exact position a second later. And furthermore, he could hit me through smoke bombs, or even at angles which should have blocked his line of sight completely (I know because once I took that same position, I couldn't target any of those spots around the corners of houses or different structures).

On its own that would be bad design but still manageable, but when you combine it with the fact that you are also trying to stealth your way past multiple enemies and the fact that the sniper always knows your position at any given time, it makes for a chaotic and messy encounter, and not in a good way.

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

Some Updates:

Nioh- I'm on the "final" main mission of the game, in that it's technically the last mission but I already know that there is actually one more after the credits. Anyways, I'm up to that traditional action-game boss gauntlet in which you take on most of the main non-gimmick boss fights that you previously encountered in the game, classic Capcom-style, and you can really tell how well designed a game's bosses are depending on how you feel about fighting them again. In general, I have gotten so much better with the mechanics (while still barely scratching the surface of the depth that this game has to offer in that department) that I don't have much of a problem with any of these bosses anymore despite some of them giving me a really tough time on my initial encounters with them. At any rate, even though I'm close to clearing this game, I am in no way planning on putting it down anytime soon. From what I've heard, the experience only improves with New Game +, and with the Dragon of the North DLC right around the corner, there's still plenty more content for me to indulge in. I also haven't even tried my hand at any Twilight Mission yet, so I really need to get on that. In general, though, it's pretty safe for me to say that Team Ninja really managed to redeem themselves with this title, after the general mediocrity and garbage that they mostly put out over the past decade or so after Itagaki's departure. This is easily my favorite game of the year, this console generation, and probably even this decade, so far.

The Last of Us Remastered- I'm roughly about three-quarters of the way through this game, and I think it's safe to say that my general thoughts on it based on the little of it that I had played of the PS3 version were pretty justified. It's one of those glorified "movie-simulators" that knows how to present itself in a way that gets game critics and people who generally don't know much about movies to think that it's telling some kind of award-worthy story, while it has gameplay just varied enough to keep less seasoned players from getting bored, despite the fact that it's formula is so clear and predictable to anyone who's actually paying attention that the encounters can start to get rather monotonous about halfway into the game. To me, it's an adequate game with admittedly good production values. The thing is, the latter always ages over time, whereas the former only becomes more apparent over time. In reality, this is a pretty bare-bones experience that certainly isn't a bad game by any means (that is, when it actually decides to be a game rather than a walking-simulator), but is a really shallow package overall, once you look past the surface. I'll definitely be finishing the game, but I have no desire to replay it on harder difficulties after I'm done with it, and I'm not so sure that I'll be all that eager to play TLOU2 whenever that comes out.

As for Nier: Automata, I'll post about that in its own thread.

[Foggle]

If you want to play a good Naughty Dog game, the Crash Bandicoot and Jak & Daxter trilogies will be releasing on the PS4 later this year.

[Spark Of Spirit]

Naughty Dog had a big staff turnover during the making of Jak II and it shows in subsequent games. They haven't made a single game post-Jak 3 that I would be willing to to play more than once.

[Foggle]

I didn't know that. Probably explains why Jak 2 has the highest highs and lowest lows of all their PS1/2 games (IMO of course).

[Spark Of Spirit]

Yeah, that's part of why the tone shift is so sharp in Jak II from the original but the level design and execution still feels like Naughty Dog games do. Even though I like 3, it has a real different feel outside of a handful of really good levels. After that game, I just don't really care for Naughty Dog's games. IMO, the games ND made after the Jak series have no character of their own. It partly explains why their idea of a fourth Jak game was so stupid. The people there now just have no idea why people liked the series in the first place.

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

I actually grew up playing the first three Crash Badicoot games on the PS1, and look forward to revisiting them with the upcoming remasters. Jak and Daxter is on my radar as well.

[VLordGTZ]

After a good 90 hours of gameplay and completing all the shrines and dungeons in the game, I finally beat Zelda BotW.  It's safe to say this is my favorite Zelda game now.  There's so much to do, and unlike other open-world games I've played, I never felt overwhelmed or exhausted while playing it.  If this is the standard for 3D Zelda moving forward, I will be completely satisfied. 

I also started playing Blaster Master Zero.  I've only gotten through the first area, but it's pretty fun so far.  I'm not very familiar with the Blaster Master series overall, but this game is definitely leaving a good impression.  I decided to pick up Shovel Knight Treasure Trove for my Switch as well, so I'll probably start on that once I finish with this game.

I haven't been able to make much progress in Nier Automata lately, but I plan to shift focus to it once my college semester is over in a few weeks.

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

So, FYI, if any of you guys are going to play Nioh at any point in time, don't quit the game when the end credits start rolling. Not just because there is a ton of after-game content (like, an insane amount of content), but because the main story actually has one more mission after the credits. I found Yamato no Orochi to be a really cool looking final boss (it's basically the Japanese version of Hydra), but surprisingly easy relative to a lot of other bosses in the game. However, the real final boss of the game, Hundred Eyes, was quite challenging. I took me about seven or eight tries to beat him, which isn't out of the ordinary for a Team Ninja game, but to be honest I bitched out and spammed my Guardian Spirit (basically this game's version of Devil Trigger) in his final phase to kill him, which I don't exactly feel great about, but I'll eventually redo that fight once I get better at the game. All of his attacks are incredibly deadly, and he becomes insanely aggressive on the third phase of that fight, so you really can't approach him without being ready to dodge away at a moment's notice.

Anyways, now that I've beaten the main story, I can say with certainty that this game made my PS4 purchase worth it. That said, it doesn't hurt to have a shit-ton of other great games on the console as well.

I'll be giving Nioh it's own thread soon enough, but suffice it to say that with all of the people I've seen praising both The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild and Nier: Automata as modern masterpieces, I absolutely feel that Nioh deserves to be right there among them with that level of praise (and to be fair, it hasn't exactly done poorly with reviews or sales in any regard), and I'm saying that as someone who went into this game with a lot of skepticism given Team Ninja's dubious track record since Itagaki's departure nearly a decade ago.

While this game definitely takes a massive amount of Influence from Dark Souls, it really is to that game what Ninja Gaiden is to Devil May Cry, in that it's a brilliant, different take from a very different developer on the same general concept and formula of the Souls games. The general backbone is clearly that of Demons Souls or Dark Souls or Bloodborne, but the full product is an amalgamation of lots of other games as well, including the truly great stuff from Team Ninja's own roots. I highly recommend this title to anyone who finds any interest or appeal in its subject matter or gameplay style. It's not as good as it looks. It's quite frankly better.