Guilty pleasures (video games you love that are infamous)

Roastedzerg

Member
What are some games you guys enjoy that others say are trash but you can see the beauty in them past their flaws?

A couple for me are Mortal Kombat Mythologies Subzero, Dayz (its getting better thou!), and Star wars shadows of the empire on the n64.

I especially love MK Subzero on the ps1, that game is dripping with atmosphere and i love the dynamic fights that can happen anywhere in the game. Though im surely not blinded to the many technical problems that game presents lol I'm currently working on trying to run through the entire game on very hard with minimum lives. After that, if I'm feeling frisky enough, i just might attempt a no death run. Wish NetherRealm studios would consider doing another title like it, i think they could pull it off much better these days, but i regress.
 
Streets of Sim City

I've always had a soft spot for that game ever since I was a kid. I used to build a city with the Sim City 2000 urban renewal kit, then opened it up on Streets of Sim City. I also customized paint jobs and build race tracks. But the graphics, physics, and gameplay are terrible. Looking back on it as an adult, I'd only play it for nostalgic purposes but not with the same enthusiasm that I had when I was 11-12 years old. Plus it glitches on newer systems anyways with all enemy AI jumping up and down at freakish speeds.
 

Roastedzerg

Member
The Snes version of Castlevania 3 was the one i played as well, really good game. I recently found out that the Sega version was pretty rad and had alot more to it, including a totally different intro stage. I tend to lean more towards Nintendo, but i think i could dabble in to naughty Sega debauchery with that title.
 

ceaselessly

Member
Streets of Sim City

I've always had a soft spot for that game ever since I was a kid. I used to build a city with the Sim City 2000 urban renewal kit, then opened it up on Streets of Sim City. I also customized paint jobs and build race tracks. But the graphics, physics, and gameplay are terrible. Looking back on it as an adult, I'd only play it for nostalgic purposes but not with the same enthusiasm that I had when I was 11-12 years old. Plus it glitches on newer systems anyways with all enemy AI jumping up and down at freakish speeds.
I LOVED Streets of SimCity. We had it in a pack of CD roms that included SimCopter, Sim Ant, Sim Tower, and other similar titles. I loved all of those crappy old games.
 
I love bad games. I'd rather spend 5 - 15 minutes playing a bad game than sink hours into a good game just to never return again.

CastleVania II is a good game. Far better than CastleVania 1, but even then CastleVania 1 is a good game. CastleVania 2 is forgiving, start where you die. Only lose your hearts when you use a continue.
 

pixeltroid

Member
I like a certain game from an infamous game publisher that anyone who grew up in the '90s would know -- LJN!!!

The game I'm talking about is "Terminator 2 : Judgement Day" for the Gameboy.

Here's my "review" of that game.

The game was punishingly difficult. It had no health pick ups, no extra lives, no continues, no savepoints, no passwords. In fact, the health bar wouldn't even reset after you beat a level! You had to use the same health bar across levels. The only time it reset was when you switch over from playing as John Connor to play as the T-800.

The levels were chaotic and confusing. If an enemy touched you, you weren't knocked back; instead, your health would start to deplete as long as you were in contact with the enemy.

The only redeeming qualities of the game was it's music and graphics. And the last stage where you fight the T-1000 was also pretty cool..

But I still liked the game because a) I was a huge fan of the movie. And b)some sentimental reasons, I don't want to get into.
 

Roa

Member
I unironically love the first mario kart battle mode above all others. The races were dull, but the battle mode was top notch and is still my favorite.

There is just something enduring about infinite line of sight across a flat plane. Plus while there was a lot less items, they behaved so much better and wacky. There were so many tricks you could do that you would never get away with in the other games. IE:

Out running red shells with power sliding.
Tricking red shells to hit the person that fired them.
Fast fake outs with the ghost, where you would meet someone in the open and steal their item right before they get a clear line of fire, and immediately fire it instead.
Where the feather could actually get you out of a situation cause there were actual walls to jump over, and going out of bounds wasn't a penalty.
Chasing people with the star was actually terrifying, because the amount of momentum conserved when bouncing off walls in that game was insane.
Being able to banana bump someone, where you head on collide with them and throw the banana, or even blocking a shell with bananas was just easier entirely in that game.

And the red shells were the best too. They didn't just follow a path mapped to the course at stupid high speeds and open paths, going around corners and dumb ****.
In the original game, they were very simple, the start out going forward, and turn over time to the most direct path towards the target. This had SOOOoo many more trick shot possibilities, it was insane. Nothing was more fun than being in an outside lane and then power sliding 2 lanes over while launching a red shell at the person stuck in the middle lane. And if they timed it right, a shell or banana of any sort could save them.(seriously, countering a red shell with another red shell while having a lane driveby was sweaty as ****)

Oh, and the mushroom boost actually was inanely useful. Everything in the first game had equal purpose, and you were never just wasting items to get something better, like a lottery of the new games. All the items just worked, all had value.

The new games just don't have any of the skill. That first game was so intense. It wasnt uncommon to have 10-15 minutes games between 2 skilled players. Try to say that about the new games.
 
Last edited:
Guilty pleasures are silly, be proud of the things you like! :p
I saw some mention of Castlevania 3, that's my favourite, best soundtrack too(VRC6 version obvs haha).
MK Mythologies was an interesting idea and it's a bit rough, but I thought it was neat.
I love Shadows of the Empire on N64. First N64 game I owned. I hated it at first because my brother got Zelda and I wanted that, but eventually I fell in love with the game, had a lot of fun with the debug menu too haha.

I'm trying to think of rough games that I enjoy...
I know people found the Rampage games on N64 dull, but I had a lot of fun with them, especially 3 player.
Quest 64(Holy Magic Century over here) was one that I was surprised to hear people bash when I got older. I thought the magic and battle systems were really unique and fun. It was a cute game with nice music too.
Zelda 2. Most fans seem to not care to outright despise this game, but I think it's one of the best. I've never gotten far in it, but I love the world, the combat, and the music. A good challenge.

I'm sure I'll think of more later.
 

Roastedzerg

Member
@Siolfor the Jackal I freaking love Zelda 2! and i remember loving rampage on the 64, the shark dude was my favorite. And im totally proud of my "guilty pleasures" but its the easiest way to describe games you love that the masses love to hate.
 

Roastedzerg

Member
@Siolfor the Jackal Oh you're right, just googled and i didnt recognize the shark (only played a short bit of the gamecube rampage) but when i looked up world tour 2 characters i recognized the rhino and realized i remembered him wrong and thought he was a great white shark.
 

TheouAegis

Member
I like a certain game from an infamous game publisher that anyone who grew up in the '90s would know -- LJN!!!

The game I'm talking about is "Terminator 2 : Judgement Day" for the Gameboy.

Here's my "review" of that game.

The game was punishingly difficult. It had no health pick ups, no extra lives, no continues, no savepoints, no passwords. In fact, the health bar wouldn't even reset after you beat a level! You had to use the same health bar across levels. The only time it reset was when you switch over from playing as John Connor to play as the T-800.

The levels were chaotic and confusing. If an enemy touched you, you weren't knocked back; instead, your health would start to deplete as long as you were in contact with the enemy.

The only redeeming qualities of the game was it's music and graphics. And the last stage where you fight the T-1000 was also pretty cool..

But I still liked the game because a) I was a huge fan of the movie. And b)some sentimental reasons, I don't want to get into.
I "like" T&C: Wood & Water Rage. It's not a good LJN game, but I still like it. lol
 

Psycho_666

Member
Oh, that's easy. Hellgate London. I love that game. The way they made the engineer class was brilliant. No engineer class ever came close to the one in Hellgate London.
 

Psycho_666

Member
looks like an interesting game, what exactly made the engineer special?
Well he is an engineer, so he builds robots and drones. You have a selection of robots and drones to build, granades, turrets... And your robot, that is actually a big drone is customizable. You can equip it with weapons and stuff and that changes it's combat style.

I just love games where you can summon creatures (diablo 2, torchlight 1) or build robots and drones (Hellgate London) and they fight with you. Most games that claim to have an engineer class have the one or two drones and that's it. Torchlight one had an entire summoning skill tree, torchlight 2 doesn't even have a summoner class.
And then I play Hellgate London, I build a turret, one of my drones slow down the enemy while the turret and my other drone shoot it down and I help with granades. That's an engineer for me. It creates stuff on the go, that help...

Sorry. Kinda exploded :D
 

MissingNo.

Member
I have many guilty pleasures, for example Destroy All Humans Path of the Furon and Big Willy Unleashed are my favorite games in the Destroy All Humans! series.
I expect most here on this forum haven't heard or know very little of the series but they are basically like GTA but the ability to level entire cities.
Well any ways the 2 titles I mentioned are considered the worst in the series. Path of the Furon was released unfinished and Big Willy I think got a raw deal because of it being a Wii game with motion controls
and not having the original voice cast return. But even with the issues these games I have I love them to death, the main draw of the series has always been the ability to destroy humanity
with crazy powers and creative weapons and these 2 games deliver that in spades. Tons of fun weapons like Black Hole guns, Giant man eating plants and that crazy bouncing weapon
have made for some really fun rampages.

Dark Souls 2 is another game I find to be my series favorite, often labeled as the worst in the Souls series I find it the most fun to play. Now saying that, I haven't finished Dark Souls 3 yet (But I am mid way through it)
and I haven't touched Bloodbourne yet but I find DS2 to be a massive upgrade over DS1, I don't really see why DS1 is considered so much better than DS2. I mean I will say DS1 has better boss fights in general
but aside from that I don't see how it's so much better then DS2.
 

Roastedzerg

Member
@MissingNo. Destroy All Humans is a really good game, i loved playing the first one when i was younger. I've never heard of the other games, i thought they only made 1 and 2, wasn't aware of the spinoff titles. I love Dark Souls 2, and agree that they definitely improved upon alot of the mechanics from the first game. However, i must agree that the first one is the best. It's because of alot of things, the bosses, creative and well crafted world design, perfectly placed traps, enemy designs, and simple yet deep and mostly hidden story. Dark souls 2 had too many traps that were impossible to make it through the first time without dying, and while Dark souls 1 had some of those, most of them were pretty fair (most of them) and it was usually the player's fault for rushing into them. I love how simple the first games mechanics were, simplicity is the ultimate sophistication they say, and Dark souls 1 nailed it.
 
but aside from that I don't see how it's so much better then DS2.
***IMHO***

better world. Dark souls 1 was dripping with atmosphere from start to finish, the environments combined with the enemies told a story in their own right while Dark Souls 2 had a weird mish-mash of areas running up against one another that made no feasible sense. (most egregiously iron keep. seriosuly, you take an elevator UP from a swamp and end up in lava world. WTF?). Combine this with some poor level design (for example in DS2, the only reason you have to go through the shrine of winter and collect the lord souls in that game is because a small piece of easily traversable ruble is blocking the lower path.) and you have an overall much less refined feeling experience.

The combat feeling flimsy and non-commital and lack of balancing between the builds also made for a poor run through. Dark souls 1 is also a much more compact game - it covers more in ~20 hours than Darks Souls 2 does in it's whopping ~60 hour playthrough time. atleast for me i enjoy playing through these games multiple times, trying different builds, doing different character quests, dark souls 2 made this really hard.

The bosses, Dark souls 1 has a lot fewer, but much more memorable bosses. Dark Souls 2 throws bosses at you like you're a dancer in a nightclub, most of which being weak, not difficult, or just a lame design.

finally, Dark Souls 2 often relies heavily on it's predecessor to illicit some type of reaction out of you. (why TF was ornstein a boss again? because people liked him from the first game?) (remember solaire? we have this new character Lucatiel who is the same in every way, but less memorable) (Remember bed of chaos? now the bug is in this guy's eye for no reason. isnt that cool? dont you rememeber that?) HATE it when games - or any piece of media does this - tbfair DS3 also does this to an extent.


As for on-topic of this off-topic thread, my guilt pleasure game is a game called "Jade Cocoon" for the PS1. weird pokemon-jrpg rip off with pre-rendered backgrounds. I'm also a huge fan of terrible resident evil clones that were on the ps1 (Galerians, Dino Crisis, Countdown vampires, Kodelko)
 

MissingNo.

Member
i thought they only made 1 and 2, wasn't aware of the spinoff titles.
Oh Path of the Furon isn't a spinoff title, it's a mainline entry to the series with the main voice cast returning, just released unfinished and never patched. It's a sad case of "What could of been" but the series heart is still there.
Fantastic weapons and lots of potential for mass destruction. I wonder if the troubles that game faced were because of THQs financial troubles? But yeah If you are fond of the series I would recommend checking them
both out and giving them a honest shake. If you hate buggy and unfinished games then Big Willy would be the way to go as it was properly finished and has very few bugs.
Although I will say Path of the Furon has very few game breaking bugs, although the FPS is atrocious at times but it's worth it for the fantastic maps.

Oh also since you liked the first game, there is a remake of the first game coming out next month. Looks really good, they added a lot of detail to the destruction. Hope the do the second as well.

the bosses
That is the one thing I completely agree with, DS2 only has okay bosses while DS1 has mostly amazing bosses aside from YOU KNOW WHO.

creative and well crafted world design
This is something I often see repeated by DS1 fans and while I agree, it means very little to me personally. I mean it's neat but all it amounts to is a bunch of walking around backtracking.
DS2 on the other hand has world design that doesn't make much sense some times but is less of a slog.

DS1 has pretty neat areas though, I think Blighttown gets a bad rap. It's a area I actually look forward to from that game.

enemy designs
I will say I liked how varied the enemies were in DS1, DS2 has too many humanoid type enemies and that is a bit disappointing.

and simple yet deep and mostly hidden story.
I probably will sound like a heathen for saying this but I couldn't really get into the story, and the reason for this is that everything is so ambiguous that it's to a point that anything could mean anything.
There is some lovable characters and neat themes but aside from that I found it too ambiguous for my tastes.

I play Dark Souls primarily for the gameplay and I can't say that I feel the first has any better gameplay. Not saying it's wrong to enjoy a game more for the lore and world design
and if that is the case I would agree that DS1 has better world cohesion, deeper lore and better characters but for me those qualities mean very little.

Dark souls 2 had too many traps that were impossible to make it through the first time without dying
To be honest I can't recall a experience like that with DS2, it does have frustrating moments but I wouldn't say anymore then DS1. Maybe if you give specific examples I could comment on it.
If we count bottomless pits as traps I would say that DS1 probably has many more traps then DS2. In fact I would say DS1 is borderline obsessed with bottomless pits.
Areas like Anor Londo, Blighttown, New Londo Ruins, Crystal Cave, Sens Fortress and the Catacombs really test my patience with the bottomless pits. Not saying DS2 doesn't have stuff like that but it is much much rarer.
Most areas give you ample room to move around with the pits being easy to avoid. In DS1 heck you can fall to your death during boss fights like the Gargoyles.

But yeah aside from Pits I don't recall many traps in either game, a few arrow traps in both games but they are easy enough to deal with.

better world. Dark souls 1 was dripping with atmosphere from start to finish
Your post came while I was typing and most of what you said I already covered but I will go over what you said briefly.

But yeah I agree with your point about the atmosphere but it means very little to me.
And besides I would argue DS2 has just as many beautiful and scenic locations as DS1. Both games in my opinion have great looking areas.

(most egregiously iron keep. seriosuly, you take an elevator UP from a swamp and end up in lava world. WTF?).
I agree, DS2 has serious issues with world cohesion, but it matters very little to me. Doesn't effect my experience. DS1 having a brilliant interconnected map does not make me want to play it more.

the only reason you have to go through the shrine of winter and collect the lord souls in that game is because a small piece of easily traversable ruble is blocking the lower path.
HAHA, I know exactly what you are talking about! And I agree. No argument there.

The combat feeling flimsy and non-commital
Not sure what you mean, I mean in DS2 timing matters, if you button mash the attack button all the time you will die and will die horribly.

lack of balancing between the builds also made for a poor run through.
I have only tried a few builds in DS2 so I can't say for sure but from what I have experienced I would say DS2 is far more balanced. For example Endurance and Resistance in DS1.
Resistance is useless and Endurance is overly useful as it levels up both your equip load and stamina at the same time.

All that being said both DS1 and DS2 have easy mode builds and gear.

20 hours than Darks Souls 2 does in it's whopping ~60 hour playthrough time.
I agree DS2 is a longer game but unlike DS1 it doesn't have a questionable second half. The general consensus among the community is that the second half after Anor Londo is largely a hit or miss.
At least DS2 seems to stay consistent in quality throughout.

The bosses, Dark souls 1 has a lot fewer, but much more memorable bosses.
I mentioned that in my first post but yeah I agree with you. But I will say the DLC of DS2 has some pretty amazing bosses.

finally, Dark Souls 2 often relies heavily on it's predecessor to illicit some type of reaction out of you.
Yeah this is something I see thrown at DS2 a lot and while I agree, it doesn't matter that much to me. It changes nothing.

remember solaire? we have this new character Lucatiel who is the same in every way, but less memorable
I agree Lucatiel is not super memorable but how the heck does anyone make a comparison between her and Solaire? Solaire is a pretty happy and optimistic guy while Lucatiel is depressed and really pessimistic.
Also she wasn't in pursuit of her "Very own sun". I don't even recall her using any faith based powers like Solaire?

But even if your comparison is accurate, it matters little to me if DS2 has a Solaire esk character.

now the bug is in this guy's eye for no reason.
Small nitpick but the Lost Sinner is a female.

HATE it when games - or any piece of media does this
This kind of thing honestly usually never phases me. It's not worth the energy to me getting worked up over things like that.

Still though DS1 is a great game that I have played multiple times and will play many more times.

Hopefully Roastedzerg you don't mind me going off topic but I find this an interesting discussion.
 
Last edited:
But yeah I agree with your point about the atmosphere but it means very little to me.
And besides I would argue DS2 has just as many beautiful and scenic locations as DS1. Both games in my opinion have great looking areas.
dont get me wrong - I enjoy DS2 for what it is. I'm not one to just **** on a game just to do it - i try to be objective about it. DS2 definitely had some nice areas and art. I think the Giant design was the best thing about that game and was really dissapointed when they moved away form it in DS3 in favor of DS1's baby man design.

I agree, DS2 has serious issues with world cohesion, but it matters very little to me. Doesn't effect my experience. DS1 having a brilliant interconnected map does not make me want to play it more.
It's just upsetting to see DS2's world after DS1's, in many ways it feels like a step backwards and is just confusing to say the least. A well built-believable world is very immersive and absolutely makes me want to play a game more.

Not sure what you mean, I mean in DS2 timing matters, if you button mash the attack button all the time you will die and will die horribly.
maybe it's just me, the attacks dont feel like they have much weight to them in DS2. Also they ruined spears - my favorite weapon :(

All that being said both DS1 and DS2 have easy mode builds and gear.
agreed, though i always found myself moving away from dex builds in DS2 in favor of the STR/END jsut cause they felt so much more powerful.

The general consensus among the community is that the second half after Anor Londo is largely a hit or miss.
I've heard this before - i think the second half of the game is fine, demon ruins is a little weak but, it's fine. its all fine

I mentioned that in my first post but yeah I agree with you. But I will say the DLC of DS2 has some pretty amazing bosses.
agreed! love the ds2 dlc, best part about it.

I agree Lucatiel is not super memorable but how the heck does anyone make a comparison between her and Solaire? Solaire is a pretty happy and optimistic guy while Lucatiel is depressed and really pessimistic.
Also she wasn't in pursuit of her "Very own sun". I don't even recall her using any faith based powers like Solaire?

But even if your comparison is accurate, it matters little to me if DS2 has a Solaire esk character.
I dont mean in the very surface level character personality or attitude, but rather the gameplay mechanic function the character serves.
both characters accompany the player through their entire journey and thus let the player use the summon mechanic.
both characters are here in this land on a personal quest.
both characters slowly lose hope over the course of the journey and end up going craaaazy.
then you have to fight them.

The arc was fun the first time around, we didnt need it again. i would have appreciated a different, more interesting approach to offline multiplayer other than a recurring character.

This kind of thing honestly usually never phases me. It's not worth the energy to me getting worked up over things like that.

Still though DS1 is a great game that I have played multiple times and will play many more times.
not really getting worked up over this type of stuff. I just see it as lazy and stale. I've already fought and conquered ornstein, explored the failings of the witches of izalith, and seen the crow demons form the painted world.
why would i want to do these things again? DS1 is partly so beloved because it's such an original and inspired game, it doesnt try to harp on things you know to enhance your experience. it just is. it astonishing to see what the lack of creativity DS2 has to offer after DS1.

a number of times in your posts you said "tat doesnt matter to me or that doesnt effect my gameplay experience"
just out of curiosity - what do you look for in these games? what do you get out of DS2 that DS1 or by extension DS3 doesnt have to offer? from a purely gameplay point of view i would even say DS3 and BB outperform both (DS1+2) in terms of pace, excitement and fun.
 

MissingNo.

Member
dont get me wrong - I enjoy DS2 for what it is. I'm not one to just **** on a game just to do it - i try to be objective about it.
Yeah I figured you were being objective and weren't trying to be disingenuous so no worries.

It's just upsetting to see DS2's world after DS1's, in many ways it feels like a step backwards and is just confusing to say the least.
It's understandable that would urk people since they are used to it from the first game. And I give DS1 credit where it's due. The interconnected world is a master class in design.
But I feel gameplay wise it doesn't add much in fact I would say it hinders it because they had to design the whole game around back tracking.

But it seems the intention was to have a world like DS1 in DS2 but see DS2 had a very troubled development and another director had to be brought in to clean up what the previous team started.
Here is a 10 min documentary about Dark Souls 2 development problems:

All things considered Dark Souls 2 came out really well considering how many problems it faced. A testament to the director who came and had to clean up the mess.
But what it seems like is if things went better the world design probably would have been better but they ended up having to slap things together to get ready for release.

A well built-believable world is very immersive and absolutely makes me want to play a game more.
See I imagine you are someone who enjoys the lore a lot and I can understand from that perspective the world design would only enrich the lore for you even further.
Makes sense and there is nothing wrong with that. But for me I could never really get into Dark Souls lore for the reason that it's so extremely ambiguous that you can believe whatever you want.
There just isn't much that is concrete about the lore. Almost everything is up for debate and I don't like that.

Don't get me wrong I don't need to be spoon fed every story in a game or movie, I like ambiguous and subtle elements in stories but with Dark Souls almost everything is ambiguous
so I find it hard to care about much of it. The reason I am saying all of this is because that is probably why I don't care about the interconnected world because the lore doesn't grab me
plus I think it doesn't provide much gameplay wise besides tedium.

the attacks dont feel like they have much weight to them in DS2
I felt the opposite, killing enemies felt much better in DS2 for me I think it may have been because of better higher quality sound effects.
But both DS1 and DS2 I would say have sound effect issues, they don't use enough sound effects for different materials, prime example is in DS1 with enemies that are made of rock or are really tough.
They play that same rock hitting sound effect and it sounds terrible, it's the same sound you hear when fighting Gwyn. Also why the hell is it when I am hit and I am dressed in full heavy armor
that it sounds like enemies are hitting my flesh in DS1? No matter your armor the hit sound effect is always a blood spurt and it makes no sense. At least in DS2 they made the "Player Hit" sound effect
more ambiguous so it sounds like you could have armor on but I don't know why they don't just use different impact sounds depending on your armor.

Also they ruined spears - my favorite weapon
I did a spear and shield build in both games and I can't say I noticed a difference but maybe you noticed something I didn't? Also DS2 has an AMAZING spear backstab animation.
You stab the guy in the back pick them up and slam them on the ground. It's the most glorious animation known to man.

i always found myself moving away from dex builds in DS2 in favor of the STR/END jsut cause they felt so much more powerful.
Interesting, I found the opposite to be true. In DS1 full havels with a Strength weapon and pumping endurance you would be pretty unstoppable.
I found dodging to be much more difficult for me to do even with a fast roll. While in DS2 dodging felt easy to pull off. But you have to invest in ADP and Agility.
Or else dodging is going to suck.

But STR and END is still pretty powerful in DS2 as well like you said.

I've heard this before - i think the second half of the game is fine
Yeah I feel about the same too, Demon Ruins certainly feels unfinished but it has a cool atmosphere. That is the communities consensus but I only partially agree with it.
Just figured I would mention it since DS2 doesn't have that reputation about it's own second half.

I dont mean in the very surface level character personality or attitude, but rather the gameplay mechanic function the character serves.
To be honest I never picked up on those kinds of similarities of gameplay and purpose. And I would wager most Dark Souls fans haven't either. Sure there is some similarities but they seem rather loose.

both characters are here in this land on a personal quest.
You could probably say that about a bunch of other characters.

both characters slowly lose hope over the course of the journey and end up going craaaazy.
Well... Sort of... Solaire can't find his glowing sunlight helmet thing and then goes over to where it is and gets a maggot stuck his head that mind controls him. While Lucaitel has been hollowing
for some time and ends up fully hollowing. With Solaire you can save him if you find his glowing helm before he does. With Lucatiel you can't save her, you can't do anything.

Plus almost all Dark Souls characters are crazy. Either that or they go fully hollow and they are nothing more than mindless zombies. So this trait of going crazy doesn't just apply to them.

then you have to fight them.
Do you mean the red phantom fight inside the keep? That is not her, you fight her brother. She just disappears from the game after the last encounter. The brother she has wears almost the same gear as her.

The arc was fun the first time around, we didnt need it again.
I mean, I didn't even notice the parallels, and I think the similarities are weak at best. But heck even if Solaire was somehow in DS2 with the exact same purpose and story I can't say It would bother me. I mean the NPC story lines
are far from great, I mean don't get me wrong I love Solaire and find him a lovable character but his little story was nothing spectacular, in fact I would say it was pretty weak to be honest.

I've already fought and conquered ornstein
I just liked that they gave him new attacks, it was a fun fight that's all I really cared about. Plus development issues could have played into some of that.

Also might I add that DS1 did the same boss 3 TIMES in the same game?

explored the failings of the witches of izalith
I mean that reference you mentioned earlier to "the bug in the dudes eye" is for a completely unique boss, a good boss I might add. They couldn't be anymore different, it's not like they copied and pasted
the Bed of Bullsh*t into DS2.

Also not sure what you know of DS2 lore but from what I know one of the themes of the game is how nothing goes away forever but rather it gets reborn. So powerful souls live on far into the future
which is why some of the bosses have passing references to DS1 bosses because the soul was reborn as them or some sh*t like that.

But yeah I will say the Orinstien thing is the most egregious reference but I don't see how a bug in the woman's eye is a problem. It's such a small passing reference that I don't see how someone could be upset over that.
Just seems like nitpicking.

and seen the crow demons form the painted world.
I only recall one in DS2 and it is the weapon smith you rescue. Not even an enemy, and I don't recall any of the Crows as friendly NPCs in the first game. Why is it so wrong to have a member of the species as a NPC?
Seems like another silly thing to be bothered by.

why would i want to do these things again?
But you aren't? Aside from Orinstien you aren't repeating anything you just mentioned, the crow is a completely new non hostile NPC (She just shares the same model) And the Bed of Chaos bug you mention isn't
even remotely the same boss fight.

DS1 is partly so beloved because it's such an original and inspired game
Have you heard of a game called Demon Souls? Now I don't know a whole lot about it but I know that the mechanics, setting and bosses are strikingly similar. Even the European style is almost exactly the same.
Heck I know Demon Souls also has it's very own Blighttown. I bet someone who knows a lot about Demon Souls could name even more things that Dark Souls either copies or makes reference too.
Sure DS2 probably does more pandering but it's in the same series and Sony owns Demon Souls so they couldn't reference it too obviously but they sure as hell did.

just out of curiosity - what do you look for in these games?
Well certainly not the lore or story. The Gameplay first and foremost, the build variety, satisfying combat, fun boss encounters, challenge and the leveling and character progression.

what do you get out of DS2 that DS1 or by extension DS3 doesnt have to offer?
Well I haven't finished DS3 yet and I'm unlikely to get to play BB anytime in the near future so I can't comment on those 2 games really. But as for DS2 VS DS1 it would probably be the better stat balance and
the build flexibility DS2 offers, I mean sure you can't start as a Pyromancer in DS2 but you can still get the glove pretty early on. The New Game plus exclusive items and new enemies make me want to keep playing.
Some areas also seem like better versions of DS1 areas. Like for example the Iron Keep is a better Demon Ruins (I like Demon Ruins though) and DS2 has a better version of the Catacombs. DS1 does have some better
area counterparts but overall I find I enjoy visiting DS2 areas more. DS2 also has more weapons and new weapon categories like "Ultra Great Swords" and weapons in each category for both Strength or Dex users.
Also the enemies in some cases seem to be harder in DS2, for example you can't circle strafe and backstab as easily as you could in DS1. Also I like that DS2 has FAR less areas that try to kill you with bottomless pits.
If you want me to elaborate on what I mean look at my earlier posts in this topic and I explain more what I mean but in short DS1 has a pit fetish.

But yeah it's possible DS3 could become my new favorite but I haven't finished it so I can't really comment on it.
 
Last edited:
But it seems the intention was to have a world like DS1 in DS2 but see DS2 had a very troubled development and another director had to be brought in to clean up what the previous team started.
Here is a 10 min documentary about Dark Souls 2 development problems:
this is pretty cool, i actually didnt notice this - ill have to watch this video.

There just isn't much that is concrete about the lore. Almost everything is up for debate and I don't like that.
admitedly i do enjoy the lore very much - in fact part of what i like about it so much is it's ambiguity - i find it enjoyable to gather evidence and come to my own conclusions from what i found, then discuss findings with other internet people/my real life friends.

I also enjoy that it's entirely optional! i think it makes the game more accessible in that aspect.

They play that same rock hitting sound effect and it sounds terrible, it's the same sound you hear when fighting Gwyn. Also why the hell is it when I am hit and I am dressed in full heavy armor
definitely agree with you - both games suffer from this. i distinctly rememeber this goofy squishing/crunching noise when you hit zombie guys in DS2. Also the DS1 bow kind of sounds like farting.

I did a spear and shield build in both games and I can't say I noticed a difference but maybe you noticed something I didn't?
In DS1 the spear had a very fluid light attack, pretty much the combo kept going as long as you had the stam, in DS2 the light attack "combo" had this weird delay every second hit. it was different and it irked me, lol. it also had substantially less hit stun.

I mean that reference you mentioned earlier to "the bug in the dudes eye" is for a completely unique boss, a good boss I might add. They couldn't be anymore different, it's not like they copied and pasted
the Bed of Bullsh*t into DS2.
This is kind of my point, acutally, sort of. It's not that i dislike the lost sinner - quite the opposite. The lost sinner is a perfectly acceptable boss to stand on it's own, so why include the chaos bug? just cause it's something we know and recognize? im not sure. Lore is cool and all but i like subtlety, if you want a run a theme of reborn souls and what not why not include it in an item description? a piece of equipment? a piece of the environment? all these references and re-used enemies and monsters just feels patronizing.

I only recall one in DS2 and it is the weapon smith you rescue. Not even an enemy, and I don't recall any of the Crows as friendly NPCs in the first game. Why is it so wrong to have a member of the species as a NPC?
Seems like another silly thing to be bothered by.
not to argue lore but like, what's the sensible reason that a crow demon birthed in a painting now be a friendly blacksmith? especially if they want to repsect the DS1 lore and everything. i like the design and everything but why not just create a new cool looking design for a blacksmith? im not sure entirely. I don't know, these things bother me - because like i said - i really like the design of the Giants in DS2, so it's not like the team doesnt have the potential.

Have you heard of a game called Demon Souls? Now I don't know a whole lot about it but I know that the mechanics, setting and bosses are strikingly similar. Even the European style is almost exactly the same.
Love Demon's Souls! played through that game a bunch. In many ways it is alot like the games that would come after it, but its also very different. for one the world isnt interconnected. it revolves around a nexus system with a handful of worlds and a much more rigid level-boss-level-boss progression system.



Very curious to see what you end up thinking about with DS3. shame you wont get to play BB, as that's my favorite of the series. I understand the problem with the bottomless pits - Demon's souls was an even worse offender if you can believe that. lol.
 

MissingNo.

Member
this is pretty cool, i actually didnt notice this - ill have to watch this video.
Yeah from what it sounded like it seemed the original idea was to have a much larger game with several different entire lands. I think it might have been supposed to be open world?
I forget what the video says.

I also enjoy that it's entirely optional! i think it makes the game more accessible in that aspect.
I agree with that. I don't mind that the story is not in your face. I just don't like how extremely ambiguous the lore is, ambiguity is nice but it's to a point that anything can mean whatever you want.

Heck the director of DS1 Miyazaki I think his name was? Said in a interview he purposely designed the story to be so ambiguous so that the story could have almost any meaning to anyone.
So it makes it all feel rather pointless to me. But I get it though, some people like stories where they can derive their own meaning out of it. And for those people Dark Souls is the perfect game for that.

But hey that isn't to say I don't like some of the characters or bosses and the small lore snippets I can gather about them. Dark Souls has some pretty cool looking bosses too.
Heck even with how easy some of the DS2 bosses are most of them are well designed visually.

if you want a run a theme of reborn souls and what not why not include it in an item description? a piece of equipment? a piece of the environment?
They actually did all 3 of those things you mention. A lot of the great souls have descriptions referencing the Lords from DS1, the Lord Vessel is seen smashed on the ground in DS2 and several pieces of equipment
reference DS1 bosses.

all these references and re-used enemies and monsters just feels patronizing.
I mean I don't know. I can't really see how someone would find that patronizing. I think if I was into the lore the reused enemies and such would make the world feel more like it actually exists.
Tons of series like Fallout and Elder Scrolls re use enemies and assets all the time and I don't mind. As a gamedev I get it, because it's saves time and money by reusing some things and from a world building perspective
It can make sense. I mean if each time I played a new entry in a series everything was new, new, new and never before seen the world would frankly lose credibility to me and I would question if the game was even in
the same series lore wise.

not to argue lore but like, what's the sensible reason that a crow demon birthed in a painting now be a friendly blacksmith?
Well I'm not too much of a lore guy for these games but since the idea of the game is that things keep moving on and changing I would say her species could have evolved to be able to talk.
I mean even just looking at the model, they are these humanoid bird things that already look like they have undergone some sort of evolution.
And DS2 is supposedly in the far future.

But I could ask a similar question. What is a sensible reason someone could enter a painting? Cool as crap but a little weird. And we know it is possible to escape the painting who is to say
the creations couldn't escape themselves? Or who is the say the artist of that painting didn't base the painting on creatures that already exist in their world?

Very curious to see what you end up thinking about with DS3
At this rate I think it will end up being my second favorite behind DS2, seems like a really solid entry, really polished.

I understand the problem with the bottomless pits - Demon's souls was an even worse offender if you can believe that.
Oh wow, before hearing that I didn't really want to play Demon Souls and finding that out makes me want to play it even less, haha. Well it looks like it has some neat bosses.

But yeah I think the Dark Souls series in general needs to move away from bottomless pits as challenges and it seems like they have starting with DS2, I haven't played enough of DS3 but it seems
they don't rely on pits as obstacles much.
 
Last edited:

Liam Jacobs

Member
Monkey Island 3 and 4. Sometimes even 5. They all capture the spirit of the game for me, and even though Ron wasn't involved in their production, they ended up being top-notch games.

If you haven't heard of the series - it's the pinnacle of the adventure game genre, and the only game series (IMHO) that pulls off being constantly comedic with no down sides.
 

Roastedzerg

Member
As for on-topic of this off-topic thread, my guilt pleasure game is a game called "Jade Cocoon" for the PS1. weird pokemon-jrpg rip off with pre-rendered backgrounds. I'm also a huge fan of terrible resident evil clones that were on the ps1 (Galerians, Dino Crisis, Countdown vampires, Kodelko)
Jade cacoon looked fun, however i must say Dino Crisis is a great game and not at all a terrible resident evil clone. That said i agree with most of the things you say about Dark souls. I really liked the 2nd game but the first one was perfect and i totally back up your claims about the 2nd's problems.
DS1 has pretty neat areas though, I think Blighttown gets a bad rap. It's a area I actually look forward to from that game.
I really liked the design of Blighttown, but that lag was unbearable. Much easier to deal with on PC, but i was a ps3 player primarily and that area was hell.
I play Dark Souls primarily for the gameplay and I can't say that I feel the first has any better gameplay.
I really love the simplicity of the first game.
To be honest I can't recall a experience like that with DS2, it does have frustrating moments but I wouldn't say anymore then DS1. Maybe if you give specific examples I could comment on it.
There's an area that comes to mind where you have to jump over lava onto a rock to grab something off a dead body and they don't give the player enough time to get back before the rock goes into the lava. I agree though that dark souls 1 did infact have areas with similar bs setups ment to kill the player without giving them much of a chance.
And besides I would argue DS2 has just as many beautiful and scenic locations as DS1. Both games in my opinion have great looking areas.
I agree, i really enjoyed alot of the area designs in the second game.
both characters slowly lose hope over the course of the journey and end up going craaaazy.
then you have to fight them.
True, but there was a neat way to save Solaire by killing the bug that gets on his head before you run into him and he could be used in the final fight with Gwen.
To be honest I never picked up on those kinds of similarities of gameplay and purpose. And I would wager most Dark Souls fans haven't either. Sure there is some similarities but they seem rather loose.
I remember immediately catching the similarity between the 2 and mentioning it to my brother. But i felt the characters had enough differences to be unique.
But for me I could never really get into Dark Souls lore for the reason that it's so extremely ambiguous that you can believe whatever you want.
There just isn't much that is concrete about the lore. Almost everything is up for debate and I don't like that
I love this about the Dark souls series. I remember hearing something a few years ago about how the creator used to read american novels when he was younger and only sorta knew how to read English, so he had to do a lot of filling in the blanks of what he didn't understand by inferring based on what he could understand. Apparently he really enjoyed this and wanted to bring this concept to the story telling of his games so others can have a similar experience that they tailored for themselves based on the information they deduced. I thought that was pretty neat.
 
Jade cacoon looked fun, however i must say Dino Crisis is a great game and not at all a terrible resident evil clone.
agreed! dino crisis was a cut above the others i named, but it still wore its inspiration on it's sleeve with fixed camera, limited ammo/crafting ripped straight from re2/3. I still havent played dino crisis 2 though, heard that one was just a straight up action game. Parasite eve is another thats cool too!

True, but there was a neat way to save Solaire by killing the bug that gets on his head before you run into him and he could be used in the final fight with Gwen
the way he acts if you save him almost makes me think he would have been happier dead :(


also!

DEMON'S SOULS REMASTER!

im hyped.
 
I thought this was the guilty pleasures thread, not the Dark Souls thread...

But to be on-topic:

Final Fantasy 2 - People always oversell the levelling system is in FF2. You really don't need to grind at all in the remakes. In the NES version, you only barely need to grind at the last dungeon, but the encounter rate is so bad there you end up doing it anyway. You also really don't need to hit yourself for more HP.

Final Fantasy XIII - I always heard "you just mash A to win" and I have zero clue which FFXIII those people played. Honestly, that criticism is far more applicable to the other FF games everyone generally considers great -- IV-VII. There's next to zero strategy in either combat or resource management in those games. It might be true for the first cutscene-laden hour or two of FFXIII, but once you unlock Paradigms, you have to be extremely active during battles or it'll either take forever and a half or you'll just get slaughtered. The real decisions are what Paradigm setups to use and when; individual commands are largely unimportant. Autobattle is almost mandatory to reduce fatigue due to how fast combat is. Yes, the story sucks and so do the characters, but the combat is great.
 
People who say you need to endlessly grind in older jRPGs are the same people that mash the attack command in all battles and wonder why they are having such a tough time.
I quite enjoyed FF2 and it's weird levelling system. Great story too, which gets expanded upon in the GBA remake.
 

Roastedzerg

Member
I thought this was the guilty pleasures thread, not the Dark Souls thread
Yeah, that topic did go on a bit longer than expected, but i think that's half the joy of this topic. I wanted people in the community not only to share their guilty video game pleasures, but to feel free to discuss them at length and express their thoughts and feelings towards them. But yeah, perhaps its best to end that specific conversation, i believe all has already been said that should be said anyways.
Final Fantasy XIII
I enjoyed alot of things from the 13th game, mostly visual details. FFIX is probably my favorite of the series, i just love the atmosphere, story, and characters. It helps that its also the only FF game i actually made any significant progress in.
 

TheouAegis

Member
I am genuinely curious as to the down votes. Is it because we like Castlevania II? Is it because we implied Castlevania II was hated? Like, I'm genuinely confused. 😸

Make no mistake about it, Castlevania II on the NES was a bad game (the Gameboy one not neeearrrly so much). The graphics were the worst pretty much the entire series. The sprite animations were practically non-existent, even compared to the Gameboy games. The game mechanics were faulty. The AI was ridiculously bad (I'm looking at you, floaty guys). I don't even need to address the dialogues, because those are simply a regional issue. Even Haunted Castle was a better game. What Konami attempted was commendable and the reason I like the game, but it's still one of the worst games in the franchise.
 

Repix

Member
I am genuinely curious as to the down votes. Is it because we like Castlevania II? Is it because we implied Castlevania II was hated? Like, I'm genuinely confused. 😸

Make no mistake about it, Castlevania II on the NES was a bad game (the Gameboy one not neeearrrly so much). The graphics were the worst pretty much the entire series. The sprite animations were practically non-existent, even compared to the Gameboy games. The game mechanics were faulty. The AI was ridiculously bad (I'm looking at you, floaty guys). I don't even need to address the dialogues, because those are simply a regional issue. Even Haunted Castle was a better game. What Konami attempted was commendable and the reason I like the game, but it's still one of the worst games in the franchise.
The guy who throws out Downvotes is a bit of a troll around here, so don't take that too seriously..

My game.. would be BioShock 2.. Managed to get 500 hours out of a 6-8 hour long campaign. (Most disliked it.. I can see why.. kind of? no not at all actually)
 

Roastedzerg

Member
I am genuinely curious as to the down votes. Is it because we like Castlevania II? Is it because we implied Castlevania II was hated? Like, I'm genuinely confused. 😸

Make no mistake about it, Castlevania II on the NES was a bad game (the Gameboy one not neeearrrly so much). The graphics were the worst pretty much the entire series. The sprite animations were practically non-existent, even compared to the Gameboy games. The game mechanics were faulty. The AI was ridiculously bad (I'm looking at you, floaty guys). I don't even need to address the dialogues, because those are simply a regional issue. Even Haunted Castle was a better game. What Konami attempted was commendable and the reason I like the game, but it's still one of the worst games in the franchise.
 
People always oversell the levelling system is in FF2.
People badmouth the levelling system, but its pretty much the same system from the past few Elder Scrolls games, and nobody says "boo" about it. Between that and the keyword system (which kind of works as a dialogue tree), FF II was kind of ahead of its time.

Final Fantasy XIII - I always heard "you just mash A to win" and I have zero clue which FFXIII those people played. Honestly, that criticism is far more applicable to the other FF games everyone generally considers great
"Mash A" is pretty strong wording for the earlier games -- its more "Tap A when your turn comes up, then patiently wait." But yeah, the Paradigm system does add some depth to the battle system, especially when you realize that the Sentinel role isn't as worthless as you thought it was. My problem with it was with the Commando role WAS basically choose "attack" five times, and Ravager WAS just: a) Black Mage. Call it Black Mage. And b) pick the spell of your choice and choose that five times. If there were different abilities within each role, it could have opened up different strategies. Either way, once you get over the "its too linear to be a Final Fantasy!" bs, FF XIII isn't a bad game. Its not great, but...
 

EvanSki

King of Raccoons
Oh boy time for dislikes.

I like Mass Effect Andromeda, I dont compare it to the original trilogy because its not apart of the original trilogy, I find its story and features really interesting

I like skyward sword, because I can and I think its amazing game, the sword mechanic gets tiring after a while but besides that its one of my favorite zelda games.
Twilight princess would be better if they took out the wolf parts

I don't like morrowind or Oblivion

Kingdom come deliverance is over rated it has the weirdest controls, and looks like Oblivion AND IT WAS RELEASED IN 2018! Maybe because I don't have an xbox one X but other games like Red Dead Redemption 2 made for the xbox one X look great on the original xbox one.

CyberPunk77 will be a flop because of over hype and the multitude of design changes
 
"Mash A" is pretty strong wording for the earlier games -- its more "Tap A when your turn comes up, then patiently wait." But yeah, the Paradigm system does add some depth to the battle system, especially when you realize that the Sentinel role isn't as worthless as you thought it was. My problem with it was with the Commando role WAS basically choose "attack" five times, and Ravager WAS just: a) Black Mage. Call it Black Mage. And b) pick the spell of your choice and choose that five times. If there were different abilities within each role, it could have opened up different strategies. Either way, once you get over the "its too linear to be a Final Fantasy!" bs, FF XIII isn't a bad game. Its not great, but...
I meant "mash A" to mean spamming the same attacks with little variation and no thought to strategy. FF4-7 are extremely easy for the entire game, save for bosses. Trash mob fights are 99% of the game, and are generally brainless encounters that consist of spamming your most powerful attacks until the enemies disappear. Unlike series like Dragon Quest or even older FF games, MP heal items are plentiful and make spamming even costly abilities a non-issue.

Commando auto-attack is very inefficient. It loves to start with Attack for the launcher even if the enemy is already in the air, in which case you need to manually Ruin. It's also really bad at using AoEs -- especially Sazh's, which is great even against single enemies in certain situations.
Ravager is a lot more in-depth than you're implying. You do significantly less stagger damage by using the same skill more than once. The auto AI knows this and almost always alternates. However, it also likes to throw in the XStrike skills which can be VERY slow. Spamming one skill can be an effectice tactic against enemies that are very resistant to all other elements, since the AI will sometimes still use those elements, and RAV AI doesn't care about damage, just stagger buildup.
And I probably don't even need to tell you how bad SEN/SYN/SAB/MED Auto AI is.
Mind you, you have to think about all of these factors and input these commands usually within one second.

Also, yeah. Anytime someone brings out the "LITERALLY JUST A STRAIGHT LINE" garbage, I just point at FFX which is the exact same thing but people don't complain about it there.
 
Last edited:

kburkhart84

Firehammer Games
I'm almost finishing up a play-through of FFX. Once I noticed how much more linear it is than the previous ones I was extremely surprised. It is still fun to play, but indeed it is much more linear than others.
 
Commando auto-attack is very inefficient. It loves to start with Attack for the launcher even if the enemy is already in the air, in which case you need to manually Ruin. It's also really bad at using AoEs -- especially Sazh's, which is great even against single enemies in certain situations.
Ravager is a lot more in-depth than you're implying. You do significantly less stagger damage by using the same skill more than once. The auto AI knows this and almost always alternates. However, it also likes to throw in the XStrike skills which can be VERY slow. Spamming one skill can be an effectice tactic against enemies that are very resistant to all other elements, since the AI will sometimes still use those elements, and RAV AI doesn't care about damage, just stagger buildup.
And I probably don't even need to tell you how bad SEN/SYN/SAB/MED Auto AI is.
Mind you, you have to think about all of these factors and input these commands usually within one second.
Yeah, the auto-AI is basically what I was referring to. FF XIII almost had two battle systems: one for bosses and tougher enemies, where you worried about things like efficient Stagger buildup and switching to Consolidation or Guarded Assault just in time to absorb the hit from a major attack, and one for the rest of the enemies, where you just auto-attack. As for the linearity thing, I don't actually mind it because it makes sense story-wise: you're on the run for most of the game. You're not going to explore.
 
I loved Sim Copter. The game was so weird it always made me think there was more going on than there really was. I wish I could have a new version of that game, and a new proper Sim City.

My guiltiest pleasure is Star Wars Rebellion. Which I still play from time to time. Even though it has a lot of serious problems with UI design, AI, and game balance issues. You could make all of your planets invulnerable because the AI would never attempt to attack a planet that had 2 shields and a laser battery. Rebel fighters were so powerful there was no reason to build any kind of starship other than fighter carriers. In fact, a fleet comprised of other ships was massively inferior. A two man sabotage team could single handedly take over the entire galaxy, because every successful mission makes them stronger.
 
Top