Games that should get remade

Discussion in 'Computers, Electronics, IT & Gaming' started by beerandbeards, Jan 31, 2019.

  1. KnightBrolaire

    KnightBrolaire neuken in de keuken

    Messages:
    17,771
    Likes Received:
    20,814
    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2015
    Location:
    MN
    On harder difficulties in witcher you absolutely need to craft potions/cook and forging weapons. It makes a massive difference in combat. The older games are even less forgiving about it as well.
     
    mongey likes this.
  2. TedEH

    TedEH Cromulent

    Messages:
    9,622
    Likes Received:
    7,011
    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2007
    Location:
    Gatineau, Quebec
    I think I'd be willing to even go as far as saying weapon durability should stay in BotW 2. I didn't hate it. Could be tweaked for sure, but it's not like the game wasn't constantly throwing new weapons at you. In a game that lets you pick up any of the bajillion weapons around, I think something like it is necessary. The alternative would be the "classic" inventory style of just a fixed set of things you either have or don't have, which has it's own merits but feels a lot less dynamic / open-world-y to me. In my eyes the mechanic was appropriate to the game.

    You know when you're playing a game and have that urge to pick up and carry everything that isn't bolted down and you end up playing inventory management throughout the whole thing 'cause you just can't have everything at once? The BotW weapon durability, to me, felt like a cure for that. You don't have to get so attached to any one weapon cause you won't have it forever, and there's always a place for the stream of new cool things to hit monsters with that the game throws at you.
     
    mongey and StevenC like this.
  3. StevenC

    StevenC Javier Strat 8 2022

    Messages:
    6,539
    Likes Received:
    7,090
    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Location:
    Northern Ireland
    You guys aren't using bows enough. It's really easy to get loads of really good bows and they're relatively very durable.

    The difficulty is balanced in such a way that you won't fight anything that can wipe your supply of weapons until you've got strong enough weapons that deal more damage and have better durability to counteract that.

    And like, there are weapons everywhere that all have different playstyles, and don't forget to throw them when they're about to break for more damage and get in another arrow headshot.
     
  4. mongey

    mongey SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    3,002
    Likes Received:
    721
    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2012
    Location:
    the gong - Australia
    sounds horrible .
     
    DiezelMonster likes this.
  5. mongey

    mongey SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    3,002
    Likes Received:
    721
    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2012
    Location:
    the gong - Australia
    I found it annoying early game . but by mid game it wasn't a concern at all.
     
    StevenC likes this.
  6. wankerness

    wankerness SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    6,782
    Likes Received:
    1,570
    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2012
    Location:
    WI
    This is false, durability doesn't improve with weapon damage. If anything, it seemed to get worse (ex those swords the big ninjas drop that break in ~4 swings). I regularly would blow through 2-3 weapons just killing a single silver bokoblin, and there'd be multiple of them in camps. I'd be lucky if I'd get one weapon that did reasonable damage from killing the whole camp, too. I regularly had to go do weapon farming runs in places like the arena to restock unless I avoided combat.
     
  7. StevenC

    StevenC Javier Strat 8 2022

    Messages:
    6,539
    Likes Received:
    7,090
    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Location:
    Northern Ireland
    You're probably using really weak weapons then, and not using all the tools available. You get bombs, arrows and stealth for a reason.

    Anyway here's how you play Zelda: find a rusty sword, throw it at an Octorok, get back royal sword, now you can kill a regular Lynel without breaking your weapon. Durability is measured in hits not damage dealt, so try to maximise longevity by not using your strong weapons on Keese with 1hp. Different items have different durability, something like the woodcutters axe (that you can find basically all over the place) is really durable but does low damage so is great to keep around for easier enemies. Use your good weapons on bigger baddies and try to deal lots of damage. Pretty early in the game you can get a super jump that lets you get into the air to snip guys whenever you want. Good bows are easy to come across and I have so many Royal bows that I'll never get through them all.

    The traveler's sword has 5 damage and 20 durability, while the royal broadsword has 36 damage and 36 durability. The ancient short sword has 40 damage and 54 durability, while the guardian sword++ has 40 and the 32. There are some exceptions like the royal guard series doing loads of damage in exchange for lower durability, but the core weapons increase both.

    The windcleaver gets 25 hits before it breaks and does a load of damage. If you aren't able to kill a silver Bokoblin with it then I don't know what to tell you.

    Both Ortoroks and rusty swords are available on the Great Plateau. You can basically get a really good sword that you'll always want immediately.
     
  8. TedEH

    TedEH Cromulent

    Messages:
    9,622
    Likes Received:
    7,011
    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2007
    Location:
    Gatineau, Quebec
    For some reason this phrasing made me laugh.
     
    StevenC likes this.
  9. wankerness

    wankerness SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    6,782
    Likes Received:
    1,570
    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2012
    Location:
    WI
    I don’t know where you’re pulling these numbers, but all of my understandings of the systems and gameplay are correct, just the amount of HP a Lynel has vs the durability of these weapons is nowhere near what you say here. I have all royal weapons, guardian++, or elemental, but it usually takes something in the neighborhood of 20 hits to kill a silver bokoblin assuming they don’t block and waste a hit of weapon durability, and if they do, most weapons absolutely are not lasting that long. And things like silver lynels take more in the neighborhood of 50+ hits unless you’re in ancient armor and hitting all the stuns and mounting them perfectly (I think if you do that it doesn’t count against durability or something?).

    The windcleaver should last 20 hits?? Absolutely never my experience. There must be some other mechanic that runs counter to durability that makes them run out faster if you’re doing something. Those things are made of cardboard it seems.

    Oh, I looked up some info. The windcleaver is unique in that the durability decreases even if you miss the enemy or swing it in the air. MAybe that accounts for it never seeming to last, especially against shitty enemies like lizalfos that jump out of range while you’re mid-swing.

    also, looks like durability radically decreases if an enemy blocks vs if they don’t, so basically it gets destroyed in half as many hits if that enemy has a shield and you don’t get them stunlocked, with the double penalty that they’re not taking damage. Ex, if an enemy blocks a hit, your sword takes 2x the durability damage and 0x the damage, leading durability to become a very big issue very fast. Unfortunately a lot of high level enemies have them!

    the most effective way to kill things often seems to be hitting them with an ice weapon alternating with fire, or hitting them with an electric weapon but waiting for the stun to wear off each swing so it doesn’t lose charge and the enemy gets hit with the bonus damage every swing. Which is pretty slow and dull!

    Bows are fine, but their damage does not scale very well. Even with a royal bow it still seems like you have to get like twenty headshots to kill a silver bokoblin, and so little damage it isn’t worth using on a lynel (unless you’re going for the daze). Since arrow damage doesn’t scale at all unless you’re using all ancient arrows or something.
     
    StevenC likes this.
  10. KnightBrolaire

    KnightBrolaire neuken in de keuken

    Messages:
    17,771
    Likes Received:
    20,814
    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2015
    Location:
    MN
    Nah, it actually forces you to think about fights in a different way rather than running in, spamming quen, igni and aard while smacking enemies with your sword. Alternatively, higher difficulties also makes running enemies down with Roach way more viable. I cheesed my way to like lvl15 on my first playthrough by doing that a loooot :lol:
     
  11. wankerness

    wankerness SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    6,782
    Likes Received:
    1,570
    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2012
    Location:
    WI
    I get the impression some people just like playing games as mindlessly as possible, ex that dude that didn't want to have to pay attention to squadmates in ME3 and just wanted to go in and shoot everything without engaging with most of the mechanics!

    I mean, they're games, they're supposed to be fun, but there's a certain point where sometimes these things start to turn me into a GIT GUD asshole since they're actually missing out on big chunks of the game. :p

    I played Witcher 3 on a difficulty where I definitely had to use potions sometimes, but it was NOWHERE NEAR as annoying as Witcher 2. It's been long enough I don't really remember the mechanics, but I think you could eventually craft an "infinite" potion or something so you weren't constantly having to replenish them, and that was where I started using them every fight? I do loathe consumables in games just cause I have that hoarder mentality of "never use consumables since you might need them for some really hard fight later!"
     
  12. StevenC

    StevenC Javier Strat 8 2022

    Messages:
    6,539
    Likes Received:
    7,090
    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Location:
    Northern Ireland
    The only enemies a single Royal Broadsword can't kill are:
    • Gold Moblin
    • Lynels
    • Guardians (excluding decaying ones)
    • Guardian Scout lvl III and IV
    • Molduga
    • Calamity Ganon
    This is before any buffs from clothing etc, and you have to be perfect on a Gold Lizalfos.

    A Royal Bow with normal arrows can't kill:
    • Blue Lynels and up
    • Guardian Scout IV
    • Calamity Ganon
    This is without headshots or other buffs. As headshots double damage, this would take the list to Silver and Gold Lynels, Ganon. It takes 10 headshots to kill a Silver Bokoblin, and it has 60 shots.
     
  13. wankerness

    wankerness SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    6,782
    Likes Received:
    1,570
    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2012
    Location:
    WI
    I'm guessing the royal broadsword can kill anything else stat assumes you never accidentally hit their shield or anything. Again, maybe some people can do that, but I can't!

    I never had problems with bow durability, just piddliness of the damage as the game goes on. You start out much of the game with shitty bows but still able to kill weak enemies like bokoblins with one headshot, as the game goes on you get better and better bows, yet it still then requires 10+ headshots to kill the scaled bokoblins? And it's barely worth using Golden Bows (the ones with the super long range) since the damage is so pathetic. I really don't like that kind of scaling! Reminds me of Goldeneye back in the day where on 00 agent you'd have to shoot some enemies in the head 5 or more times before they'd die. It was kind of funny there, though. Even bomb arrows have to be used en masse once you're dealing with later game enemies.
     
  14. TedEH

    TedEH Cromulent

    Messages:
    9,622
    Likes Received:
    7,011
    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2007
    Location:
    Gatineau, Quebec
    I don't know that I'd go as far as "mindlessly", but I'm definitely on the side of wanting to engage with a game on my own terms, in whatever way seems like it'll be the most fun - and sometimes that absolutely means ignoring whole mechanics. Sometimes though, I tend to think that if a mechanic doesn't "happen" during the core loop of the game, that might be an accessibility issue, in the sense that you don't know or realize or remember that it's there - and you could debate whether that's a failing on the part of the games design or the player.

    Not to open the can of worms that is "git gud vs difficulty settings", but sometimes gitting good isn't fun. And if it's not fun, you lose part of your audience. I respect the idea of an intended experience, and trying to put forward the feeling of overcoming obstacles, etc - and I'd never say that anyone should be "forced" to add those features if they don't want to... but I've also never run into a game that was objectively worse because it had a difficulty setting.
     
  15. wankerness

    wankerness SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    6,782
    Likes Received:
    1,570
    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2012
    Location:
    WI
    I agree with people that say that Bloodborne and Dark Souls would not be ruined by having difficulty settings (I mean, it's already radically easier if you just grind for a while, so clearly just knocking enemy damage down 33% and player damage up 33% would probably be enough for everything other than the numerous places with instant-death falls). But, I do think that unless there's a good accessibility reason, playing in ways that completely eliminate the primary mechanics of the game is cheating yourself to the point where you haven't really experienced the game. Like, playing a game with invincibility (or "story mode" in some games is this much of a nerf) mode where you can completely ignore any mechanics of any boss fight and still not have a chance of losing, or in mass effect 3 just completely not engaging with squadmates and the very deep combo systems. It's one thing to ignore crafting in a game where it's a tertiary system, you're still basically experiencing it and probably having to do other stuff to compensate, but another thing entirely to switch it to supereasy mode and functionally turn the game into a walking simulator. I'm not saying you get NOTHING out of it, but you definitely didn't really experience it.

    As a sidenote, I think Dark Souls is immune to difficulty settings to some degree, since by far the hardest sections of that game are the ones that deal with death-defying platforming crap where you die instantly if you twitch the controller slightly or get hit by an enemy. They'd have to have very different map layouts to accommodate a mode that would truly be easy. Though the aforementioned damage nerfs/buffs would probably do a decent job of at least making it much more accessible since you wouldn't so easily die to any random enemy you encounter.

    I think "losing part of your audience" isn't necessarily a problem. If you don't like it, you weren't part of the intended audience. Kinda like how many people just hate all movies of some genre, you will never please them, so why even try? Just make the best movie you can and if that's a niche audience, so be it. It's only when they stick something really hard in something clearly geared towards casual players that it is bad, IMO.
     
  16. TedEH

    TedEH Cromulent

    Messages:
    9,622
    Likes Received:
    7,011
    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2007
    Location:
    Gatineau, Quebec
    Does that matter? If you only play the first level of a game, with cheats, but you had a good time and are happy with it..... so what? I'd counter-argue that most people don't experience 100% of most of the games they play.

    If you're the one selling/making the game, it's absolutely a problem. The audience for games is everyone. If your only objective is creative expression directed at only your "true audience", then this is a meaningless conversation, but games are commercial products (as well as, to some point, a community). We have these conversations as if there isn't a middle ground - as if difficulty options wouldn't be, you know, optional - or as if we haven't already conceded that they wouldn't harm the experience for the "core audience" anyway.

    Don't get me wrong, I'm not on team "you MUST add difficulty settings to everything" - not everyone has to like every game, and sure, if you don't care about excluding some people then I guess games "aren't for everyone", but the adamant arguments against adding options when you can make no sense to me.
     
  17. wankerness

    wankerness SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    6,782
    Likes Received:
    1,570
    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2012
    Location:
    WI
    I guess I think of games as being like movies. Not all movies are made for everyone and the only movies that try to be are like, PG-13 Marvel movies. If you're talking about AAA games like Assassin's Creed, yes, they try to be directed at everyone and that's where big difficulty spikes are a problem. But I feel like something like Dark Souls is more like something like, I dunno, Get Out, where a large chunk of the population will hate it on principal but is good for precisely those reasons. It's a kind of artistic statement and clearly they felt the non-changeable difficulty was part of what they were trying to say.

    If you think all games should be 4-quadrant blockbusters then that's where we disagree, I guess.
     
  18. mongey

    mongey SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    3,002
    Likes Received:
    721
    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2012
    Location:
    the gong - Australia

    I like games to be a challenge, even hard is fine , but I just don't care to get into fiddly mechanics around crafting and the like. I'm busy and my time is limited .I need to figure out what to cook for my real family tonight after 8 hours of work , I really don't need to spend time in a game doing that .

    I just want to play the game that's there and have fun . that doesn't mean that I want it to be mindless.
     
    wankerness likes this.
  19. TedEH

    TedEH Cromulent

    Messages:
    9,622
    Likes Received:
    7,011
    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2007
    Location:
    Gatineau, Quebec
    I don't disagree with you per-se, I just think the arguments against making games more accessible to more people are weak arguments. It would be a non-argument if there weren't people who wanted to play those games but feel excluded from the community/culture of it. Souls-like games became "a thing" in recent years, and a bunch of people feel like they're being excluded. As a consumer, I say "so what". As a creator, I have to think of that from other angles.

    I'm personally 100% on the side of a creator having the freedom to create whatever they want on whatever terms they want - even if the "justification" is weak. It's a weird middle-ground to take and maybe difficult to articulate. It's two things at once: difficult games don't need to justify their design, but also the justification they do have is weak. It's not a good reason, but that's fine because they don't need a good reason.

    I also tend to think like this, usually. I'll play "until the end" of something, then move on. A lot of times I skip DLC and endgame stuff because it feels like filler to me (or sometimes feels mildly exploitative). But I also try to be mindful that this isn't how everyone games. Some people literally just stay in one game for huge amounts of time - hundreds and thousands of hours experiencing the same content over and over. Some people try things, go nope, put it down and never come back. A lot of sandbox games feel like the antithesis of how/why I play games, but those are hugely popular. Sports and racing and sim titles sit almost entirely out of my understanding of what makes games fun - I know some guys who just play the same racing titles for hours on end just doing laps and it seems mind-numbing to me, but they get something out of it, so who am I to judge.

    Getting slightly back on topic, there's been a lot of rumours jumping around lately about Zelda remakes and the more I think about it the more I think the Oracle of Ages/Seasons games would really benefit from the Link's Awakening treatment.
     
    wankerness likes this.
  20. wankerness

    wankerness SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    6,782
    Likes Received:
    1,570
    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2012
    Location:
    WI
    Nintendo didn't make those two, so it seems unlikely. I would like them to do that with Minish Cap, but that was also not a Nintendo game, so I guess the odds are pretty slim. I don't know if there's any reason Nintendo wouldn't be able to get the rights back from Capcom and do it (or have Capcom do it), but it just seems like they're only releasing remakes/remasters of their own stuff so far.
     

Share This Page