Pick a genre which you have absolutely no interest in, or even dislike.
Now explain what a game would have to do to get you to want to play it in a meaningful way, for a long time, in the way that the games are generally played by their community. As in, describe what this game might look like, or change about the "Status quo" of design paradigms in the genre.
I am very curious in answers about some genres like JRPGs, fighting games, and maybe RTS.
...
So, do you think there is a hypothetical game of that genre that you would play? You can do anything you want with it.
ASSFAGGOTS for me, too.
But my main gripe with them is their unbelievably shitty community.
There's nothing you can do to make people nicer, so I just avoid the genre (and most multiplayer games) entirely.
puzzle anything
the only way to make me play the games is to do away with inane puzzles, and inane puzzles are the life force of these games so i think there is no way to fix it.
it's very strange, i loved soul reaver and it's crate puzzles, but i can't stand Zelda OoT and it's crate puzzles
although puzzle platformers are the worst offenders, with their shitty rooms where you need to do 30 perfect actions in 6 seconds to pass through.
for me, puzzles are just a crutch devs use to make their game feel more engaging without actually adding intelligent content in it.
JRPGs
Get rid of the story or at least 75% of it.
Well I am curios what you dislike about these genres and also what you would want to add in order to play them. If you respond we might recommend some already existing games that have what you desire.
Dark Souls
But seriously, what do you like more, turn based combat, teal time action, team based combat and how many(3,4,40) and so on?
Have you tried the Layton series? If you don't have a DS you could always emulate the first few games.
I loved JRPG's. Now I hate them.
To get back into them, I'd need a JRPG with little to no dialogue and an extremely simplistic story, heavy repercussions for death or perma death, INSANE RNG out the ass, NO FUCKING DIFFICULTY MODES AND ESPECIALLY NO DIFFICULTY MODES THAT CAN BE CHANGED ANYTIME MID-GAME, extremely hard to navigate dungeons, and I'd prefer for there to be no character portraits for any of your party members.
The only game that has met all of these prerequisites in the last decade is The Dark Spire. And it's flawless.
Casuals ruined my favorite genre so bad I don't even know.
I don't really understand why anyone would want these or list them as positives. From what you describe you mostly want a dungeon crawler and not really a JRPG. I haven't played such games but maybe this list can help you(I am sure that the older Wizardry games have RNG and no difficulty modes).
Just curious, what constitutes "intelligent content"? Puzzles seemed like it would be in that category. If what you are referencing with "puzzles" are puzzles and not something else.
That's very interesting. So LESS story and more of the mechanics. As in, turn base combat?
This is very strange. This sounds like those "rogue-lite" games that infest the indie scene. Why would you want so much RNG?
RTS
Don't make me feel like I've got a gun pointed to my head
never tried them, just saw some puzzles from the game in threads here on Holla Forums
gonna try it, thanks.
Play Command and Conquer: Red Alert 2's campaign. Very comfy and very easy to stomp AIs and learn what the units are good for. If you want less gookclick, don't ever play SC2.
how is the ability to change the difficulty at any time a good thing to you?
How is having options a bad thing? If you're too weakwilled to keep it on the highest difficulty, maybe you shouldn't play video games. Or be trusted with money.
Well, maybe the game has a Hard mode that is intended for New Game + and it doesn't tell you(Dragon's Dogma) so I don't want my warrior in full armor to be killed in two hits by a small bat or a small rodent. Or maybe I chose medium, because I didn't know what the game had to offer, and after two hours the game is still too easy so I might want to crank up the difficulty setting instead of replaying from the beginning.
Plus that if you don't want to change the difficulty then it doesn't matter if it's there or not. I guess you could argue that casuals will exploit it and change the difficulty to easy when fighting a boss, and on hard in between. Yeah they could but even if they couldn't they will still be causals and either quit the game, enter a cheat code or get a trainer to raise the characters stats and levels.
...
This sure was a quality post.
platformers with tedious trial-and-error level design where all difficulty is made null anyway with checkpoints every few meters, i.e. indieshit
by intelligent content i mean actual strategical thinking, enemies that you actually need to make a plan to defeat, level design that you need to make choices on how to pass through, varied environmental based strategies.
super mario world/mario 64 are good examples of what i'm talking about, as is devil may cry 3/4 (on the enemies part)
i hate when the game goes "ok, now stop everything and solve this puzzle so you can activate that gate/open that chest so you can proceed."
in soul reaver, you have various ways to interact with the puzzle pieces, you could spin them, you could flip them it was fast to move them around, it took you less than a minute to actually act on it. All of this together probably lessened my dislike for the puzzles there.
an intelligent puzzle is a puzzle that's ingrained on the games mechanics, so much so you don't even see it as a puzzle, kinda like the tetris-like puzzle in megaman battle network that you used to get special effects and bonus stats or climbing the colossi in Shadow of the Colossus.
The RTS genre is like this for me. For me to play a real RTS game, the game would seriously need to give me something to keep me engaged the whole time without feeling like a grindfest for resources. If it can keep me entertained as I grind or when I'm doing stuff, then maybe I'll be able to stomach it. This said, the closest a game has ever got was with Brutal Metal by allowing me to enter the fray should things not be going so well.
Echoing this poster, what these games need to do in order to get me to to play them is to ditch the infinite retries + checkpoint excess and embrace actual good risk-reward game design.
*Brutal Legend
Non-games/sandboxes such as Minecraft and a lot of simulators would have to become actual games for me to take an interest in them. And what do I mean by this exactly? I would like some actual goals and rules to test my skills in something. I can fuck around with anything on my free time already, it's the whole purpose of Linux for me for instance; when I want to play a game I want to be tested.
Your welcome, the first puzzles are baby tear and there will be some hard puzzles as well, but you do get hint coins to unlock up to three hints for each puzzles(of course there are less hint coins than 3 times the number of puzzles). But the first game's setting is quite comfy and the music is nice.
You'd probably enjoy Guilty Gear 2 since it's basically the same style but simplified menus. Also emulate Batallion Wars 1 and 2, they're not extra strong on strategy but they do involve commanding a small army appropriately.
Well there is a Holla Forums group for Wurm online right now(I think they are at the third thread). The game is like an even more autisitc version of Minecraft, but it can be perfectly described as a peasant simulator. Just ask them what role they need and you could fill it, so that could be your goal and rules to test your skills.
...
great game if you're too casual for mazes
I'm fine with losing a lot upon death but at least save something for the next go through. Level, stats, skills, progress…something, so I feel like I'm not wasting my time.
Try Rogue Legacy. Bosses stay dead if you beat them and castle upgrades are permanent, even in NG+
And if you're into Rogue's gameplay more, try the Mystery Dungeon series, namely the pokemon ones. They pretty much get rid of permadeath in favor of traditional leveling and such.
Sport games.
These are the only ones that I have absolutely no interest in playing now.
I do, however, remember playing a really old football game on the NES in which you controlled only one character and everyone had special powers like breathing fire and such.
Now that kind of game might be interesting to try if it was made today.
I don't think there's very much you could do to make me like the genre
Isometric click-to-move pieces of shit would need to ditch their fucking awful control setup and implement a sane method of character control already.
Racing Games.
They'd need to have Quake-style physics, and allow the vehicle to side-strafe, bunny hop, etc. As well as better levels, that is, less straight lines or rings. Why not have a maze level, or a level where you're being hunted down by monsters?
The last thing racers need is rocket jumping bullshit.
Well, I don't know a racing game like quake, but I might recommend you give Nitronic Rush a try. Tis free, a survival racing game where each level is basically a death gauntlet with wall riding and shit. There's also Distance by the same devs with prettier graffix, but it costs money and is in Early Access at the moment.
i don't like top down/isometric stuff to start, and i don't wanna fucking grind during multiplayer matches like an idiot
again, i don't like top down stuff, and i'm probably not clever enough for these games
even if the camera was different the combat in them just doesn't feel personal enough
It wouldn't even be a racing game at that point.
Mobile games if you can consider that a genre
Other than those I can't think of a genre that I actively dislike, I can even get into sports games if I'm in the right mood.
Are you talking about mutant league football?
ASSFAGGOTS.
Ban all current players, take away electronics too for those under 18 or russian.
If both then house arrest them for life.
Introduce new maps (whether it be what it looks or shaped like) and game modes
Introduce a small background story with in game events to represent it.
Might I suggest Spiral Knights to help with the Diablo thing? Its not the best by any means and it is an MMO, but its fun, with teamwork being rewarded as well as a decent set of weapons. But the art design and soundtrack is where the real good shit is.
I never bothered with MOBAs, but I tried this out because I like superheroes and I liked the redesigns of the superheroes.
It shut down like a year later because no one else cared, however.
No, it only had human characters and it was football, not eggball.
Sports games. This one's easy.
1) EA should die. They can't be trusted, and they monopolized the genre so competition is largely fucked. The big problem isn't really EA but the number of companies who'd look to directly compete, which is impossible and dumb.
2) This is the big one, the one that would take me from indifference or outright disdain right on over to fan: more GAMES less SPORTS. NBA JAM is a great example of this, where the sports elements are there and they function but there's some crazy stuff to make it more interesting. Remember Tony Hawk Pro Skater? Those games had good game-play elements that didn't require any knowledge or appreciation of the sport being played, on their own they had a lot going for them in the mechanics department. The mario sports games tend to do this too; Mario Kart vs Gran Torismo? Mario Kart every time, it's fun and easy to grasp with enough going on to reward me for trying to do better than last time.
But until the industry crashes from saturation or something we're stuck with movies that think they're games and the like.
Needs to stop being dead ;-;
Either make more actual RP, as in /tg/ level or better, or go back to just plain dungeon crawling, none of this in-between shit like Skyrim.
Have the large-scale ones play like pre-Bad Company Battlefield
Have the small-scale ones play like Unreal Tournament.
Simulators are fine as-is.
Finally,
NEVER
EVER
MIX ANY OF THEM TOGETHER
then play mario kart 8
when you do a mini turbo or full turbo or a shroom or boosting on a pad, hop and turn left or right, you move faster because you're not on the ground slowing down to your base speed. however if you're going downhill fast you have to sustain your hops in order to actually go faster
you can do a sharp turn drift by turning left into right and having your angle snap really fast to the second input you did
there's also another drift where you use the dpad hit both up and left and drift and you drift slightly but not all the way right
but theres still more autism like some of the map you can hop into to go fast like mount wario
nigga aint nevah played no megaman battle network
Ah, proper football.
I think I know what you're talking about but I can't remember the name for shit, but I do remember it being pretty fun
But Warcraft 3 was good.
I do agree that just about every game nowadays has some RPG elements to give the player the illusion of progression.
There is no reason for this since you're usually going to get all of them anyway, or in some rare cases only the useful skills and skip all the garbage ones.
It's not like you even need them most of the time since the enemies only get spongier with progress, and don't get any new skills themselves.
I was specifically talking about mashing together the three types of FPS.
Though I probably should have included the multiplayer levelling bullshit, but it's right below increasing time-to-kill so that dying doesn't feel like total bullshit half the time.
I suck at aiming and I hate taking cover, so remove both of those things. Make the game about dodging projectiles, managing resources and exploring mazes. No regenerating health, few checkpoints, no manual saving, stages should ideally take no longer than ten minutes to complete.
Since the game is less about aiming and more about shooting give the player more movement mechanics like rolls, dives and slides. Each world consists of several stages and the last stage of a world consists of nothing but a long and tough boss fight.
Game would probably have to be in third person because of the movement mechanics.
I enjoyed the classic Doom games and Vanquish, so a combination of those two would be cool. I liked the exploration and resource management in Doom and I enjoyed the movement and boss fights in Vanquish. Both games don't really rely on aiming either.
No QTEs, barebones story, no cutscenes during levels (some short cutscenes for stage transitions and boss introductions would be nice), no cinematic execution moves.
I love JRPGs, but modern JRPGs really need to go back to turn-based combat and cut down on animation time. Also stop boring me with inane dialogue, especially in the beginning of the game.
Meant to say "more about dodging"
CHeck out Plain Sight. Its sort of a shooter, but everybody uses swords and dodging is your only real hope besides blocking since everything is a one-shot. It's pretty fun, does weird stuff with gravity.
JRPG's
Quit being whiny bullshit with stupid faggot characters.
Stop playing Tales and Final Fantasy first. Then see
and the rest of the series.
This tbh fam.
Also, anything "competitive" can fuck right off.
Fighters
Lay off the memotrash
No fixing it. By their very concept they are boring and only appeal to hardcore autists. To change what it is to something more abstract (fun) would be to kill the heart of what they are. You cannot turn Farm Simulator into Harvest Moon and have it considered the same genre.
You would need choices that actually matter, writing that's actually good, legitimate replayability, and a fun concept. Doesn't have to be particularly novel of a concept, just something that hasn't been done that well in gaming.
less equipment/optimal play autism, different map types, different game modes, more casual (i.e. random items or something). Basically turn them into party games.
[Serious] Third Person Shooters
Grand Strategy
[Serious] Sports games
Nothing. If I don't like something then I am clearly not the target audience for that genre. I'm not a fucking SJW.