60°

OXCGN Asks: Are You Sick of Playing Hide And Seek?

OXCGN:

"When I was a youngster eager for amusement of any kind, Easter egg hunts were a lot of fun. The promise of reward in the form of chocolaty goodness and the competition of beating my brother and sister to more treasure strained my eyes on the search so much that I now have to wear glasses (okay genetics may also have had something to do with it…).

But now I have grown up (somewhat) and what do I find myself doing? The same bloody thing, only now I hunt goodies in video games…and it's a lot less fun."

darkmurder5304d ago

Amen, I am getting so sick of these, they're ok in moderation but every single game seems to have one nowadays.

allegionary5304d ago

Those flags in Assassin's Creed were a bit much! How many of you got them all? or wanted to?

gaminoz5304d ago

@allegionary

I tried...for a long time, but couldn't find one or two in a set and got sick of it. I rarely find all the collectibles in a game, and find it distracts me from actually playing a game.

Oh look a treasure...ooops got shot because I was going to get treasure and didn't see dude around the corner.

XboxOZ3605304d ago

I liked the flags - at the beginning, then after looking around so many corners and on top of buildings, I tired of it quickly.

In Assassin's Creed 2 you have proclaimations and notices stuck to walls and doors with daggers to find . .bugger.

cornfedgamer5303d ago

The lack of collectibles was an aspect I really liked about Darkest of Days. I could actually play the game, focus on the mission, without worrying that I was missing out on something.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 5303d ago
gaminoz5304d ago (Edited 5304d ago )

I know they want to encourage more exploration, but useless treasure hunting is not much fun unless you get $$ to upgrade equipment or something.

allegionary5304d ago

I don't mind achievement points for finding things, but I do then tend to use a 'faq' list to find them...just to get the achievement and so I don't have to redo the game because I've missed one somewhere.

That kind of defeats the purpose...I admit.

XboxOZ3605304d ago

In some games, when the action is frantic, and naturally moves you forward to the end of the level, you don't have time to find some dull item that doesn't do anything for the games progress, yet when you actually finish the game completely, the various achievements are not completed simply because to do so would have required you 'leaving' the real gameplay to do so . . which in my mind is just dumb and nothing more that the developer cranking up the time a game plays.

If they can't build better levels and gameplay, please don't make them longer simply by adding dull achievements or treasure that do nothing other than frustrate the player.

Godem5304d ago

I hate when games reward you for falling down a hole you were supposed to jump over in the first place etc.. annoying as...

"Oh look, the player has succeeded first attempt! Shall we reward him?!"
"No way! He doesn't need extra bonuses if he can do that first go!"
"Let's save our treasure for some noob who can't press X to jump"
"K"

gaminoz5304d ago

That's retarded. What game does that? You go somewhere to die and get a treasure?

Godem5304d ago

almost every adventure game... for example.. Jak and Daxter

allegionary5304d ago

Totally agree...they sit there and tempt you to die to get something...how does that help gameplay?

REALgamer5304d ago

You got an achievement in multiplayer mode for:
- Killing an enemy
- Killing a dinosaur
- Killing a teammate
in the same match.

Developers: "Haha, this would be a great achievement! Kill one of everything in a multiplayer match! How could actively REWARDING players for team-killing go wrong?"

XboxOZ3605304d ago

Or when you get an achievement for doing something lame that would happen anyway for most players.

That's like giving achievements out to say that you do . . it's sort of sounds good on paper to a prospective purchaser, but terrible to the person who plays it.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 5304d ago
XboxOZ3605304d ago

So many games almost force you to do such things now in order to move forward or achieve even the basic achievements that you would think would be common due to natural progression through a game.

I've lost all desire to go chasing rubbish now, not unless it is vital to the game in some form.

gaminoz5304d ago (Edited 5304d ago )

What, don't you want a prototype design of an in-game monster pic?

XboxOZ3605303d ago

In Borderlands, if you bother to look around and open various boxes, you'll find stuff that will help you, more weapons, add-ons for weapons, skills etc etc. They have over 6 million possible weapon combinations in the game, actually, Randy Pitchford said the number is basically unlimited due to the sheer number and combinations.

Now that is worth hunting around for, the game will rock when it hits the shelves, shame though, as it lands the very same day as Forza 3 does, and there's a lot of ppl waiting for that game, so perhaps it was not a good time to release such a great game (Borderlands).

But yes, these sorts of things encourage one to go a hunting, even in the midst of battle . . as you're rewarded with something useful, rather than something that is useless.

REALgamer5304d ago

In Halo 2 in the early Earth levels when you're crossing the bridge in the Scorpian tank, if you climbed up on the edge and somehow managed to get a Banshee to swoop past you and hijacked it, you could then fly down the end of the bridge, work out the way past the invisible wall and get on top of a building.

In the centre was what looked like a regular plasma rifle, until you tried firing it and found it shot the massive Scarab blasts! =D

Also in Halo 2, you could get in the pelican that dropped people off in the streets before taking on the Scarab and it would then fly you outside the level. More an accidental glitch than an easter egg, but it was still awesome to get outside the level where the pelican would then throw you out and start randomly spinning in midair. Could jump on it and shoot it to make it spin even more.

gaminoz5304d ago

Much better than unlocking a piece of useless artwork....anything that can be used in-game is better than just some cog tags or flags or whatever. RPGs have got it right...find stuff, use stuff.

XboxOZ3605304d ago

These sorts of things are good, and different. Many developer team members have spent some time creating some of these exploits, some are simply a glitch, but they do add something to a game especially when there is some combat or tasks involved, rather than falling through a hole in the floor out of the level then having to quite to start again - that's useful - NOT . . but the things you've mentioned above are fun,and often useful.

Show all comments (24)
140°

Resident Evil 5 - 15 Years of Being the Most Misunderstood Resident Evil

Resident Evil 5 launched 15 years ago today - and it continues to stand as a stepping stone from the good to the bad.

TheBrainZ44d ago

One of my favourites because of the co-op. Then Resi 6 arrived and the series nosedived further.

Knightofelemia44d ago

I enjoyed the game co-oping with a friend I know the game in solo the AI can be an idiot but RE5 is way better then RE6. I played RE6 with a friend if it wasn't cheap when I got I would have avoided RE6.

thesoftware73044d ago (Edited 43d ago )

5 was excellent, still play Mercs with my brother.
I would love a fully remastered RE:5, with some added, reworked content. The DLC for 5 was also excellent.

6 was awful.

CrimsonWing6943d ago

I never understood why the game was misunderstood. It was a fantastic game at launch and is still fun today to play. It’s as action packed as Resident Evil 4 was, yet that’s regarded a masterpiece 🤷‍♂️

chobit_A5HL3Y43d ago

it was "misunderstood" because they introduced co-op into the franchise at a time when people loved to have fake rage about co-op. like, you could play the game as a solo experience, but people chose to have their bandwagon rage because it was cool at the time lol

-Foxtrot43d ago (Edited 43d ago )

What the hell are you talking about? Fake Rage? Bandwagon? Come on.

You can play it solo but you are forced to carry around a shitty AI partner you have to micro manage. It wasn't as fun solo.

Co-op sucked all the horror, tension and suspense from the game because having a partner covering you was like a safety net. Enemy trying to sneak up on you? No sweat the AI will just automatically lock on, alert you while they shoot first telling you where they are basically.

It was the start of Capcoms fall with the Resident Evil series where it basically become an over the top generic action game which betrayed it's own survival horror roots. Least RE4 had a good blend of both but Capcom just went the wrong way with RE5, especially going off what they were going to do during the RE4.5 beta phase before co-op was added.

franwex43d ago

At least the game was a ton of fun tho. If the game was bad, the outrage would’ve been justified. They simply pivoted for a couple of games. At this point it’s bad because it’s called Resident evil 5? But if was called something else it would’ve been good? Please.

chobit_A5HL3Y42d ago

like i said: fake baby rage and bandwagon hate. res4 wasn't really that scary, either, and was already taking the series into more of an action-oriented direction at the time. 5 was a good game that people fake-hated because of co-op that you didn't even have to play lol hence the fake rage and bandwagon hate. i mean, it obviously did well enough for capcom to go ahead and make 6 the way they did, right? if 5 was so bad, they would have changed what 6 was during development. the difference is that 6 was actually just bad.

people "hate" 5 because res4 was so good, and 5 was just unfortunate enough to be its successor. like i said, 4 wasn't scary, either, and relied more on tension than horror, but it was already more of an action game. if you don't wanna like 5 because it's not scary or whatever- that's fine, but it wasn't meant to be strictly a horror game anymore at that point anyways. the gameplay was a lot faster-paced than 4, so saying that the ai helping you by potentially shooting someone that was sneaking up behind you is a moot point. there were more enemies that were more aggressive, along with newer threats.

5 isn't as good as 4, but it's not a bad game by any stretch.

Tody_ZA18d ago (Edited 18d ago )

What? I always thought RE5 had fake controversy because it was set in South Africa and you shot a bunch of black zombies. I live in South Africa and thought the game was absolutely awesome, played the whole thing co-op with my brother.

@Foxtrot I think you're confusing the garbage Dead Space 3 with Resident Evil 5. Resident Evil 4 was already a hyper action game and had zero fear factor other than the grotesque appearance of some enemies.

Show all comments (16)
80°

Bioshock: A Rapturous Revelation

Hey Poor Player's James Davie Takes Us On A Bio-Shocking Deep Dive Into Irrational Games' Nautical Nightmare.

Read Full Story >>
heypoorplayer.com
60°

Milestone Games in the History of the First-Person Shooter (FPS) Genre

Have you ever looked at a modern first-person shooter and wondered "How did we get here?" Wealth of Geeks performs a deep dive into the genre, including some of the most influential games, from the very first FPS from the cross-genre experiences that changed the game entirely.

Read Full Story >>
wealthofgeeks.com
shinoff218364d ago

I've looked and wished we never did get here.

CheatCC

Ad