2009
Meh. I spent a lot of time on this and I must consider this writing these lines.
A game that lasts more than a decade isn't bad. How can it be ? Yet, I shout down its design for being clearly oriented towards top elos. Unfortunately, the vast majority of players are simply ignored, although they fund the game.
A game that lasts more than a decade isn't bad. How can it be ? Yet, I shout down its design for being clearly oriented towards top elos. Unfortunately, the vast majority of players are simply ignored, although they fund the game.
2017
As we say in french : OSEF
Each system work, but none function. Inventory is full. Characters are level design tools. Open world is uselss. Combats are unreadable. And dunjeons are too dark to see something.
Each system work, but none function. Inventory is full. Characters are level design tools. Open world is uselss. Combats are unreadable. And dunjeons are too dark to see something.
2007
When it comes to Valve's games, I cannot say which one of them has been more impactful on videogame as a media. Portal, Left4Dead and Half-life are frequently cited (I intentionally do not speak about counter-strike), but I believe TF2 is comparable. Yet, TF2 has also gived a lot to animation for instance. So it is certainly better in a way.
2015
Good enough to be played and remembered.
Not good enough to be memorable.
Not good enough to be memorable.
2012
The calamity is fun.
I have played this game waaaaay much than I thought. It is certainly better than what I remember. Be careful tho, I don't think it aged well.
I have played this game waaaaay much than I thought. It is certainly better than what I remember. Be careful tho, I don't think it aged well.
It is a pleasure thinking this game as been made as a fun game and not a competitive one
Another entry in the MGS series that reach the top of what can be a videogame. Kojima and the team added a combat game to a stealth game. This is absurd, yet they managed to make it useful, fun and pertinent. The health systems follows the same way : it is another way of designing health through hunger, and while it can be limitating in certain aspects, it is used very cleverly through the adventure.
2015
I think it will fulfill your desires if you want to play soccer with cars. Warning tho : it is a competitive game, I a m not sure you can have fun playing it casually.
2008
Something we didn't expected yet is wonderful. A survival horror between tradition and modernity. I did it when I had not internet, it was a great experience returning to this game everynight after work. I am not sure, but it might be a timeless game. I am sure it did not needed 2023's remake. Look at the covers, you'll see which of these two games has tried something, which hasn't.
2006
Katana one against all is fun. Other sports are okay.
2012
This is a sanction note. I believe far cry isn't a good game, yet history has proven me wrong. When we take a look at far cry 1 or 2 or when we play them, we feel something very interesting. This hardcore way of seeing modern time fps, this everlasting unpredictability, this bizarre mixbag of infiltration, gunfights and environmental control... This is a unique proposal. When you play far cry 3, wether you play it in 2012 or 2023, you have a strange feeling that nothing matters. All the game can be played with the smae bow or sniper without at any time having one reason to pickup a shotgun or a grenade launcher ? It doesn't matter. You have to play the game with the x button always pushed to spent half of your playtime in looting animations and struggling against your way too small inventory ? It doens't matter. Gunfights aren't intense, gunfeel is poor ? It doens't matter. Stealth is that uninteresting but that quicker than loud that it becomes a go-to unfun fast problem resolving swiss knife ? It doesn't matter.
Plus, I did not find Vaas that good as an antagonist.
This game isn't for me, I recommand you play the first two far cry. If you liked far cry 3, all its sequels are the same game.
Plus, I did not find Vaas that good as an antagonist.
This game isn't for me, I recommand you play the first two far cry. If you liked far cry 3, all its sequels are the same game.
2010
A mix between horror and 2D plateformer that was one of the first milestone of cinematic platformers revival.
It is sober. This sobriety is its strength.
If you seek a mechanical plateformer, it isn't the case of Limbo. Yet, if you seek a plateformer that plays well, plus have some smart puzzles and a total mutism (which is wonderful, I hate when people speak), Limbo is a good choice.
Kids are killed in Limbo, watch out if you dislike that kind of theme.
It is sober. This sobriety is its strength.
If you seek a mechanical plateformer, it isn't the case of Limbo. Yet, if you seek a plateformer that plays well, plus have some smart puzzles and a total mutism (which is wonderful, I hate when people speak), Limbo is a good choice.
Kids are killed in Limbo, watch out if you dislike that kind of theme.
1994
Well, I did it on GBA but it isn't available.
I guess it's a great FF. If you're a pixel art fetishist, you're at the right place. If you love FF ost, this one is a succession of masterpieces. Finaly (Fantasily), combat system benefits a lot from ATB dynamism.
Imho tho, the game is (too) long. The way characters are playable in a short time, then unplayable for a while and you eventually simply use Lock or Edgar can be kind of disapointing. It has JRPG, FF and 90s flaws : I am softlocked due to a random difficulty spike (a behemoth on flying islands) and I'm am supposed to farm to level UP and beat it, which I'm not willing to do. Plus, I'm not a huge fan of Kefka.
I guess it's a great FF. If you're a pixel art fetishist, you're at the right place. If you love FF ost, this one is a succession of masterpieces. Finaly (Fantasily), combat system benefits a lot from ATB dynamism.
Imho tho, the game is (too) long. The way characters are playable in a short time, then unplayable for a while and you eventually simply use Lock or Edgar can be kind of disapointing. It has JRPG, FF and 90s flaws : I am softlocked due to a random difficulty spike (a behemoth on flying islands) and I'm am supposed to farm to level UP and beat it, which I'm not willing to do. Plus, I'm not a huge fan of Kefka.
I think it is, with DayZ, my least liked game.
It's basically everything I hate. Let's pass very quick on obvious and exogens factors like toxic community, poor matchmaking and suffocating theme to speak about game design.
When I play a game, I actually want to play a game. When I play CS:GO, I do as everybody does : I take a gun, I move myself in front of other people with guns, sometimes I win the fight, sometimes I loose the fight. At this point, a game that pretends to be a game would give me a fair penalty, make me wait for 10 seconds, and then make me respawn to try again. This is what does 90% of games, and it is very useful in order to both reducing frustration and keeping me in the flow : I have the chance to try again, and I'll learn from this new situation. CS:GO does not have respawns, so once you're dead, you'll have to do one thing, which is the baddest thing that can happen in videogames : wait.
Ok then, CS:GO is a hardcore videogame. Agreed. It also pretends to provide coherent balistic and gunfights.
They indeed are coherent, but they also are stupid. CS:GO's recoil follows its own logic : if you shoot an automatic gun, you better crouch and look at your enemy's feet because every single bullet after the 2 first shots are going waaaaaaaaay upward. It is unfun to use (I have no pleasure looking at feet and praying a random bullet will go in a head), unfun to play around and unfun to play with.
When it comes to actually being a videogame, CS:GO here again fails miserably. It's the symbol of those awful games, where snipers are a rule acclaimed by the playerbased, whereas shotguns are fully useless. Unfortunately, game design wise, a shotgun make way more sens than a sniper : the first one is a high-risk-high-reward weapon (you have to come close to your opponent to deal massive damage, which gives your opponent the time to react) whereas the second one is a low-risk-high-reward weapon (you can be as far as possible from the target, you'll still be very efficient). It is an fps with asymetrical teams, where there are no differences (aside from an assault rifle, woah !) between the two teams. It is an FPS that doesn't feature weapons that try to be different : there are no flamethrower, no grenade launcher, no rocket launcher, no automatic shotguns, no miniguns, no mines, no outside-of-the-box weapons... (and of course if you try to use semi auto sniper, you'll be insulted by both your team and the ennemy team). Both game design and level design encourages camp, which is the lowest point of multiplayer action games. In the other hand, I must say it also encourages stealth, which is a really good thing.
It is a multiplayer game where there really is no multiplayer gameplay. Everybody goes its way and gets randomly shot at a badly named location (long ? Short ?). It's a vindication of kill-culture, which isn't fun.
Considering the amount of FPS that exist, I do not recommand playing CS:GO. I also recomand playing way more arcade games and way less competitive games.
It's basically everything I hate. Let's pass very quick on obvious and exogens factors like toxic community, poor matchmaking and suffocating theme to speak about game design.
When I play a game, I actually want to play a game. When I play CS:GO, I do as everybody does : I take a gun, I move myself in front of other people with guns, sometimes I win the fight, sometimes I loose the fight. At this point, a game that pretends to be a game would give me a fair penalty, make me wait for 10 seconds, and then make me respawn to try again. This is what does 90% of games, and it is very useful in order to both reducing frustration and keeping me in the flow : I have the chance to try again, and I'll learn from this new situation. CS:GO does not have respawns, so once you're dead, you'll have to do one thing, which is the baddest thing that can happen in videogames : wait.
Ok then, CS:GO is a hardcore videogame. Agreed. It also pretends to provide coherent balistic and gunfights.
They indeed are coherent, but they also are stupid. CS:GO's recoil follows its own logic : if you shoot an automatic gun, you better crouch and look at your enemy's feet because every single bullet after the 2 first shots are going waaaaaaaaay upward. It is unfun to use (I have no pleasure looking at feet and praying a random bullet will go in a head), unfun to play around and unfun to play with.
When it comes to actually being a videogame, CS:GO here again fails miserably. It's the symbol of those awful games, where snipers are a rule acclaimed by the playerbased, whereas shotguns are fully useless. Unfortunately, game design wise, a shotgun make way more sens than a sniper : the first one is a high-risk-high-reward weapon (you have to come close to your opponent to deal massive damage, which gives your opponent the time to react) whereas the second one is a low-risk-high-reward weapon (you can be as far as possible from the target, you'll still be very efficient). It is an fps with asymetrical teams, where there are no differences (aside from an assault rifle, woah !) between the two teams. It is an FPS that doesn't feature weapons that try to be different : there are no flamethrower, no grenade launcher, no rocket launcher, no automatic shotguns, no miniguns, no mines, no outside-of-the-box weapons... (and of course if you try to use semi auto sniper, you'll be insulted by both your team and the ennemy team). Both game design and level design encourages camp, which is the lowest point of multiplayer action games. In the other hand, I must say it also encourages stealth, which is a really good thing.
It is a multiplayer game where there really is no multiplayer gameplay. Everybody goes its way and gets randomly shot at a badly named location (long ? Short ?). It's a vindication of kill-culture, which isn't fun.
Considering the amount of FPS that exist, I do not recommand playing CS:GO. I also recomand playing way more arcade games and way less competitive games.
2016
It is one of the only VR game I played. I think it is where VR will eventually lead (once the technology becomes better, cheaper, and less space consumming) : concepts that deeply revisit the 3Cs (Controls, Character, Camera) considering VR specificities (spacial awarness, fluid & free but limited vision, precise but limited moves...).
With SuperHot you have 3 innovatives Cs.
- Character : the game concept. Time goes on only when your character move.
- Controls : Moving is a way of accomplishing things (pointing and shooting a gun), but it is also as way of making the time goes on. Plus, your hand exist and allow you to do a lot of thing : grabbing, throwing, smashing, holding, stabbing, covering, dodging...
- Camera : you can move freely your head, but you have to consider the time going on and some enemies will attack you from your blind spots.
Simple, sober, original, efficient, fun.
SuperHotVR.
With SuperHot you have 3 innovatives Cs.
- Character : the game concept. Time goes on only when your character move.
- Controls : Moving is a way of accomplishing things (pointing and shooting a gun), but it is also as way of making the time goes on. Plus, your hand exist and allow you to do a lot of thing : grabbing, throwing, smashing, holding, stabbing, covering, dodging...
- Camera : you can move freely your head, but you have to consider the time going on and some enemies will attack you from your blind spots.
Simple, sober, original, efficient, fun.
SuperHotVR.