this post was submitted on 13 Dec 2024
70 points (92.7% liked)

Games

32951 readers
633 users here now

Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.

Weekly Threads:

What Are You Playing?

The Weekly Discussion Topic

Rules:

  1. Submissions have to be related to games

  2. No bigotry or harassment, be civil

  3. No excessive self-promotion

  4. Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts

  5. Mark Spoilers and NSFW

  6. No linking to piracy

More information about the community rules can be found here.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

At least Naughty Dog are doing something new, but this didn't grab me. Looked like the most generic sci-fi setting ever.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] QuantumSparkles@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I normally agree with you but Naughty Dog has a good enough track record that I’m not worried. But yes in principle I do absolutely hate the trend

[–] mohab@piefed.social -3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

I was gonna say "Yeah, they have a good track record making playable movies." But that's not fair to Jak and Crash.

Still, they haven't made anything with interesting gameplay since like 2004.

[–] CaptDust@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

I recently played uncharted 4, can confirm there is a lot of interesting gameplay mixed with the mastercrafted, often interactive, cut scenes. It was an excellent experience by any measure and the game is nearing 10 years old.

I swear people are confusing naughty dog with another dev or something, their worst game is still more fun than 90% of other studio's best.

[–] mohab@piefed.social -1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

It's all relative. Mediocre is still better than garbage, but not necessarily interesting or innovative. It's just "fine" because the whole point of the gameplay in these games is to progress the narrative forward. Mastery is rarely, if ever, required and gameplay depth is of no interest to players or developers.

You ignore all of that and start comparing their catalog to Ubisoft pumping out generic trash for years (NGL that Prince of Persia game is sick though) and you get a much brighter picture that doesn't necessarily take all factors into account.

Personally, I play games for the hyper engagement they offer, which I expect from hobbies and cannot get from film or literature. Stories, on the other hand, I can find elsewhere, so I don't necessarily care for them that much in games.

Again, it's all relative.

[–] CaptDust@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

If narrative driven games aren't your cup of tea there's nothing wrong saying that, but writing off the extensive gameplay provided in naughty dog games is silly. I think your take would be better directed at something like Metal Gear Solid, that actually locks you in for hour long non-interactive cut scenes.

[–] mohab@piefed.social 1 points 1 week ago

You may wanna re-read my comment—I did not bring up cut scenes, or claim Naughty Dog games don't have enough gameplay sections.

My point was Naughty Dog's gameplay sections are uninspired, non innovative, and passable at best because they're more interested in telling a story than innovative gameplay.

Whether I like narrative-driven games or not is of no relevance.