-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Can a video game with horrible gameplay be truly considered good?
- Thread starter Dust
- Start date
Don't see the praise most naughty dog games get. Story wise they solid. But the praise they get is way over the top as the gameplay is average. Uncharted 1 is just awful in terms of gameplay. They slightly improved over the years, but still don't think they masterpieces.
Gameplay doesnt mean just combat, like most people seem to think so. And even so, the combat is well above average in Witcher 3. Well above. The insistence this forum has with calling the combat really bad then equating combat alone to the gameplay of the game feels like a meme at this point
User warned: platform warring
Psst. Haven't you heard? This forum really likes their Sony first-party games. You keep this up like me and they will brand you a troll really fast.
You lost me at Prey has bad combat and that shooting things is the only part of combat gameplay.
All of the gameplay in witcher 3 is bad. Movement is awful in all areas, control feels terrible, and yes combat is of course atrocious
Personal opinion. It definitely doesn't feel as smooth as the best shooters around (not that it's the only thing going on in Prey, but it's important).
I never said this. You do, however, spend a considerable amount of time shooting at things or battling enemies, and the actual act of doing that is just not particularly fun compared to something like Doom or Call Of Duty. I'm perfectly aware these games are not trying to be those kind of games, and in fact I appreciate the tactical options they give, but the gameplay still feels too weak and boring to me. Again, these are tastes, not sure what's to contest about those.
I mean, Doki Doki pretty much had no gameplay, yet it's excellent entirely for its narrative/out-of-the-box/expectation shattering reasons. So, yes.
Consider thinking about gameplay like you would in a tabletop RPG—which is one video games' closest mediums of comparison. In tabletop the story is not only just as important as the gameplay, they are united elements. Who your character is, what they do, how they do it, and where they go is all just as (if not more) important than how they fight. It's all part of the role-playing experience. You don't just roll the dice for fighting. You're meant to constantly interact with the game world and roll for how well you do so. Video games work similarly when they're not ludonarratively dissonant, and that for the most part depends on the game designer and dungeon master.
Although it's true that most of it is your standard visual novel fare.
I would say Doki Doki has a lot of interactivity towards its latter half, actually. More than most games even with what it asks you to do and how you're meant to "complete" it.
I don't know of many games that ask you to close them alter their files.
Default movement was pretty out there, but after they patched in alternative movement it was alright. Its stopped being an active negative point.
But this is still not gameplay. Gameplay is the totality of the game's systems actions and reactions. The movement, the difficulty of the game, the missions, the objectives, the inventory, the item placement, the enemy encounters, the potion system, the dialogue tree, the dialogue ramifications, the choice and consequence system, the flow of the game, the artificial intelligence, the leveling up system, the sign system - this is what the gameplay in Witcher 3 is. For some reason, the bulk of gamers have no idea what gameplay is. Its either the clashing of swords in a game like witcher or the act of releasing a bullet from a weapon in a shooter. Seems all games are reduced to a singular act even when they have a hundred different systems in place.
What the hell? Why are the online gaming community are just complete hipster?
No. If it's serviceable at the very least, then it can be. Otherwise I feel like it brings out the question of "Why isn't this a [insert other medium]?"
I can get absorbed by a great video game story and liveable world, but if I'm constantly fighting against gameplay mechanics, I'm out. I can't take it. Really just makes me want a TV adaptation. Really looking forward to Witcher 3 Netflix series.
For me it depends whether you like the gameplay or not, gameplay can be average or poor but if it's something you get some satisfaction from and enjoy playing through then you can still enjoy the game.
Games like The Witcher 3 where the combat is terrible, people do like it enough to play through the game, for me I can't play it since it's not engaging or satisfying at all so hard to stick it.
Whats weird to me though is when I see comments where someone would acknowledge that the combat is bad and not something they enjoy but then go on to say it's still a 10/10, best game they've played this gen etc., it's like a major part of the game, what you spend probably like half the time doing when you're in control of your character XD, for me there's no way I would rate a game that high with a major component of the gameplay being poor.
Games like The Witcher 3 where the combat is terrible, people do like it enough to play through the game, for me I can't play it since it's not engaging or satisfying at all so hard to stick it.
Whats weird to me though is when I see comments where someone would acknowledge that the combat is bad and not something they enjoy but then go on to say it's still a 10/10, best game they've played this gen etc., it's like a major part of the game, what you spend probably like half the time doing when you're in control of your character XD, for me there's no way I would rate a game that high with a major component of the gameplay being poor.
People needs to stop to say such bullshit. Or at least tries to argue deeply what is it so bad about the gameplay in such game because it's annoying read the same hyperbole every single time. Seriously.
Last edited:
Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines.
Everything about the combat, hand to hand or ranged, was hot garbage on account of the game being released as a barely held together beta. But looking at the finished product, there's a chance it would have sucked anyway.
Still one of the best RPGs ever.
Everything about the combat, hand to hand or ranged, was hot garbage on account of the game being released as a barely held together beta. But looking at the finished product, there's a chance it would have sucked anyway.
Still one of the best RPGs ever.
RDR2 for me. I played for 50 hours because of the great story and because of how beautiful and interesting to explore the World was.
The controls / combat were absolutely abysmal by modern standards though imo. Brings a 10/10 game down to a 7/10 game for me. Such a shame.
Hopefully the inevitable PS5/XB2/PC versions can run at 60fps and eliminate much of the input delay and on PC at least there will be mods to offer a way of skipping unnecessary animations that slow the game down (like looting bodies / picking up objects in stores).
The controls / combat were absolutely abysmal by modern standards though imo. Brings a 10/10 game down to a 7/10 game for me. Such a shame.
Hopefully the inevitable PS5/XB2/PC versions can run at 60fps and eliminate much of the input delay and on PC at least there will be mods to offer a way of skipping unnecessary animations that slow the game down (like looting bodies / picking up objects in stores).
Oh sure. ND is appreciate just because all the world is full of sony fanboy but thanks to God exist people which shine our peasant mind with brilliant post like this and they honor us with their superior knowledge in this forum.
Its absolutely not hot garbage. Jesus christ. Its just a simple hack n slash with melee weapons, its absolutely entirely functional and gets the job done. Ranged weapons, are stats based, dont feel that good to use, just a few of them. Vampyr released last year or The Sinking city released couple of weeks ago have infinitely worse combat systems than bloodlines, and were released 15 years later.
Then, the exploration, the clans, the dialogue tree, the choice and consequence, the stats based ramifications of the game, the missions, the objectives, the maleability of the game's systems - those are all gameplay facets my dude. Bloodlines is not a game with shit gameplay.
I wrote above how all encompassing "gameplay" really is. Bloodlines is one of the shinning beacons of gaming - not a game with shit gameplay. Dont think many people wouldve given two shits about it if the gameplay were shit
The Last of Us does not have horrible gameplay. Like, not even close. It's the best Naughty Dog game since CTR in terms of gameplay.
I vehemently disagree. Reloading, weapons switching and combat AI were well below subpar. Even most spell casting (as a Tremere, no less) was meh at best. Melee was super messy and third person shooting was plainly unfun.
Fighting in Vampire was a real fucking chore and one of the reasons why the sewers sucked so bad.
Another way to look at it is that the fantastic RPG elements were massively brought down by some of the jankiest action ever shown on a cult classic.
It's a terrific game, but there's an enormous gulf in gameplay quality varying on your style and each section of the game.
It's also one of the reasons why Bloodlines 2 animations and combat don't concern me. It looks janky as all hell, but all the other good stuff seems to be there.
There's nothing weird about different priorities of what an individual can and will enjoy while still acknowledging particular flaws.
Also the end experience, the sum of its parts is far far more important and resonant for majority of people rather than one individual thing. I for example can't enjoy purely gameplay driven games, no matter how good it feels to play. I need to care for why I'm doing what I'm doing. Gameplay loop alone gets boring really fast
Well, well, aren't you the posterboy of the people I'm talking about lol.
Good or bad are largerly subjective. Just cuz we happen to reach some sort of consensus on extreme cases more often than not does not change that fact. Honestly, with toxic behavior around reviews, review score and general horrid way people treat dissenting opinions on theirprecious geek products online, I think it'd be healthier if we just moved on from this weird objectivist point of view.
As for my examples, alpha protocol, two worlds 2.
As for my examples, alpha protocol, two worlds 2.
People really have no clue what "atrocius gameplay" is, do they? I profoundly dislike both TLOU and Witcher 3's combat (so much so that I dropped both), but they're definitely nowhere near "atrocious".
Yeah, I guess you're right, and I'm not saying one individual thing but if it's something like I said you'll be spending a lot of the time doing while playing it's hard to get past that, a lot of my favorite games this gen are story driven but the combat is also engaging enough that I'm able to see out the story/character arcs etc., others where gameplay I've not liked but enjoyed the story/characters I'll just get my story fix through youtube since for most games that kind of stuff I don't actually need to play the game to experience/enjoy. I can play a game with satisfying gameplay but poor story since I can skip that stuff but the other way round I can't do.
It's a 'your mileage may vary' kind of situation and a question of what captivates you most about the games you play. If you merely play games for mechanics and challenge, I'd imagine janky gameplay would be a deal-breaker. If you're more there for narrative, setting or atmosphere, then maybe not.
I don't think there's a right or a wrong, I think the bigger challenge for many people is accepting a that 'critically acclaimed x' is not for you, because it doesn't push your buttons. I liked BotW, but I know I'll never love it like others because it lacks key things I really look for; I really like the gameplay look of RotN, but I'm having a hard time looking past the art direction, which doesn't nothing for me.
I don't think there's a right or a wrong, I think the bigger challenge for many people is accepting a that 'critically acclaimed x' is not for you, because it doesn't push your buttons. I liked BotW, but I know I'll never love it like others because it lacks key things I really look for; I really like the gameplay look of RotN, but I'm having a hard time looking past the art direction, which doesn't nothing for me.
None of these games have horrible gameplay. They have janky combat. Yes, the comabt in these games isn't good (far from "horrible" though). But gameplay is more than just the combat aspect of the game .
No. If you have bad gameplay, you are a bad game. You can not be bad at the interactive aspects of an interactive medium. I can get a story elsewhere (often better), and the visual/audio stuff are ultimately the superficial achievements of the game. The gameplay however is the defining characteristic of the game. No matter how well written or told the story is.