Yes, when you strip away everything that makes a piece of media good, you can present the media as not being good. Anon is truly an intellectual.
this post was submitted on 22 Dec 2023
456 points (97.1% liked)
Greentext
6840 readers
1242 users here now
This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.
Be warned:
- Anon is often crazy.
- Anon is often depressed.
- Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.
If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
- Press button
- Press other buttons
- Repeat
insert successful video game name
- Do something
- Something else happens
insert occurrence name
Honestly it's not even true. Plenty of missions in GTA V don't require you to shoot anyone or at least it's only part of the mission
- Jump on platforms, collect stars, repeat 120 times
- Collect blocks, build things, repeat until you're bored
- Rotate blocks, make lines, repeat until you die
OP has indeed described the concept of a game
Click on their foreheads
GTA missions are actually so dogshit. You could remove GTA's story all together and id still buy it just for the sandbox.
GTA Online missions became better with time. New missions are way more convenient to play than older missions. The only downside is that Rockstar also heavily cut down on the stuff you can use during missions. Rockstar, during my playtime I assembled an army that can rival a small nation. I don't want to fight most missions on foot, I want to obliterate my target with a tank!
I am only talking about the single player story cause I have not played that much online. I played a lot of online before heists and it was grindy and the missions sucked but you could glitch money to avoid it.
Hard disagree. What open world sandbox shooter that lets you be a criminal does it better?
You're really gonna say the heists weren't sick as hell?
I never played the heists. I am mainly referring to the story missions.
The story has multiple heists.
There are heists in the main story…
Ok then I stand by what I said before. I thought there were some fun multiplayer missions I hadn't played before.
Eh, I found them interesting, but by the time I got a handle on it, there weren't any more to do. Heists should've been something you could do as often as you want.
- Steal $5M worth of stuff
- Get sentenced to life in hospital prison
Story is the key for me. Gameplay is important but story is what gets me hooked.
I image that is why people play old games that have poor mechanics when viewed with modern eyes.
Gameplay is the barrier to entry. Every GTA game I played, going all the way back to GTA2, was fun to play. I wouldn't have cared about the story in Vice City or San Andreas if it wasn't fun to play.
I image that is why people play old games that have poor mechanics when viewed with modern eyes.
Sometimes! But I think sometimes you play old games for the mechanics... Heck, sometimes you even play old games for the art direction / atmosphere. I think I can get a lot out of old games just by kind of appreciating them in the context of the year that they were released... In that sense I think I can also be impressed by the graphics in some old games, because I can be impressed with what they managed at the time.
But yeah, I think games have a lot of aspects that can make them worthwhile (and different people will value different things). Nethack doesn't have a lot going for it in terms of graphics or story, but it's still worth picking up and it's not impossible to sink hundreds of hours into.
I had a debate about Skyrim and how if you break it down (or any Bethesda game for that matter) the game is just "walk from point a to point b, talk to npc, get quest, go to cave, kill all trolls in cave, come back to npc, get reward". And then it dawned on me: gaming is just doing things and fulfilling progression requirements.
The trick is to make your experience dynamic enough that it never feels formulaic. The format of GTA hasn't changed since 2001, but the games are still fun. Why? Because each mission takes you somewhere detailed and new and the structure of the missions is generally always different. Plus the games are hilarious. Skyrim is great, but once you do all of the quests and are just grinding, you start to see just how limited the scope of gameplay mechanics actually is.
There are two or three things at the base : the story/narrative, the mechanic itself (gameplay loop), and the choices. What you describe is the gameplay loop. To make it interesting, it must renew itself, so be varied enough and have some depth.
In a single player game, the renewal relies on the encounter design. The depth is the mechanic for the gameplay loop (in skyrim that would be the various weapons and spells first). MP games have less problems for renewal because players invent new tactics and play differently. But game balance and dlc are still used to renew the gameplay anyway.
I'd play the game just for the dialogues alone
My unpopular opinion is that the GTA games aren't fun because all of the mechanics are mediocre. Driving feels better in racing games, shooting is more satisfying in shooters, fighting is better in brawlers, etc.
It's impressive that they cobbled a bunch of things together into a sandbox but it that's not enough to overcome the blandness.
The thing that makes gta and many sandbox games less enjoyable for me is that there is almost no unprompted interaction with the map. GTA makes you start a (side)mission or whatever for everything.
Zelda was the exact opposite and that’s why it was such an exceptional open world game. I wish rockstar would take note.
Aim at enemy head
Click
Counter Strike, the most successful shooter.