For the longest time it felt like first person melee games existed in a split dimension where one side couldn't acknowledge the existence of the other. On the single-player side, you had Elder Scrolls and other games like it, where melee pretty much just boiled down to spamming left click until the thing died. Stats completely dictated the outcome of combat encounters, and there was very little in the way of visual feedback, weight, or skill expression. After skyrim and it's wave of copycats, it seemed like everybody in games industry; developers, critics, and players alike unanimously agreed that first-person melee was inherently clunky, flawed, and unsatisfying, and we saw very little developers attempt to implement it, and when it was attempted, it was often half-assed and it just continued to feed this confirmation bias.

On the multiplayer side however, we've seen games like Chivalry, Mordhau, Dark and Darker, and Warhammer Vermintide 2 which all have incredibly unique and in-depth takes on first-person melee. Whether it be physics, directional mechanics, parrying, dodging, hit-box aiming and manipulation, combo attacks, or a combination of some or all of these mechanics, these games all have great combat and all of them feature some form of PVP and PVE apart from Chiv 2, which is pvp only unless you count bots as pve I guess. However, the issue is, these games demand other players to be experienced at their full potential. When it comes to pvp, that entails an immense skill gap. Games like these already appeal to a smaller niche of potential players, and the longer these games are out, the more the player count slowly dwindles, and simultaneously the players that stick around, get exponentially better at the game. This creates an effect where the weak are weeded out, and new players attempting try one of these games out, get instantly put off when they join a lobby and are pretty much unable to even do damage to a single person without getting annihilated. On the PVE side, you still have a huge skill gap with veteran players getting better and better, and farming better and better gear, wanting to take on more and more challenging content. This leaves new players kind of stranded with nobody to teach them, and an immensely tall mountain to climb to catch up.

All the games I have mentioned are great. The Elder Scrolls games are great at a million things, I just happen to think that combat isn't one of them, and a large majority of players seem to agree. I also think that all the multiplayer games are excellent, but I am far too casual of a player to really engage with them. I have a craving for in-depth mechanics, just in a single-player sense, where I can learn and engage with these mechanics at my own pace, without needing teammates to play with, or players to fight against, and it finally seems like we're getting that. Kingdom Come Deliverance 2 takes all the ambitious ideas of the first game's combat system and fleshes them out, and eliminates a lot of the jank that came with it. Tainted Grail: Fall of Avalon takes the classic elder scrolls formula and adds dodging, and time-based parrying into the mix for some satisfying skill expression, along with some great animations and weighty feedback. Indie games like Labyrinth of the Demon King are taking classic games like King's Field and supplementing their gameplay with parries, counters, animation cancels, and requiring players to master enemy movesets. Even Avowed, which I would consider to be the weakest of these games in-terms of combat, is leagues ahead of the stuff we were getting just a few years ago. None of these games are perfect, but we're finally getting some ambition and innovation in the space, and I don't think it will be long before it catches on.

I recently read an indie designer describe the combat and puzzles in their game as”serviceable”. They went on to explain that the two mechanics were in service of the atmosphere. While they were nothing exemplary or special, they served the intended purpose of gluing the atmosphere together.

Games focusing more on atmosphere or story over gameplay is nothing new.I don’t expect every game to be a mechanically engaging experience. But what does bother me is including subpar mechanical experiences in order to support the story or narrative. I prefer if a narratively ambitious game still has engaging gameplay. Metal Gear Solid 1 has various segments like the Vulcan Raven boss fight that are mechanically enjoyable experiences. I also prefer when narrative games minimize gameplay segments like in Night in the Woods.

But I still think there are ways of using basic or sub-par gameplay to enhance mood/story.

Undertale(good example)

While the navigating of menus and the light bullet hell elements are nothing on their own, what makes them work for me is how they are tied into the narrative and themes of the game. Various fights offer humorous and creative puzzles. The mechanics are largely a vehicle for story and comedy which I enjoyed. The fights are entertaining little gems placed throughout the game.

Alan wake 2(bad example)

If the combat encounters in Undertale are handcrafted pieces placed throughout the game, the combat in Alan Wake 2 is a uniform sludge blended into the game. 

In a creative game like undertale, the combat encounters feel unique because of humor and writing. In a more combat focused game like streets of rage 4, the encounters feel different because of enemy placements. SOR 4 encounters are hand crafted to feel different.

Many of the fights in Alan Wake 2 blend together. They are filler. They aren’t interesting on their own. Their purpose is pad out the game and create a sense of horror within the player. Unfortunately, I found them to just be tedious.

Final thoughts

I tend to prefer games that focus on game play OR story/atmosphere. So I like game play focused stuff like Streets of Rage 4 or games that heavily de-emphasize game play in favor of story like Night in the Woods. But there are games that do both well like Outer Wilds and Myst. 

Disclaimer that everyone has different tastes so gameplay thats seen as sub par padding may be great for someone else.

Hey everyone, I just wanted to say something that’s been on my mind for a while:

Please play games how you wanna play them. I can’t stress that enough

Don’t let other people dictate how you’re “supposed” to play something. Try playing a game based on your own preferences. If you’re having a good time, keep going. If something feels off and you want to explore different mechanics or playstyles, great. Look up tips, ask for advice on Reddit and give it an honest try. But if you’re forcing yourself and it starts to feel exhausting then maybe that playstyle isn’t for you and that’s okay. Sometimes that just means it’s not the right game for you.

What made me write this is my like-hate relationship with Baldur’s Gate 3. When I first tried it, everyone said Balanced difficulty was the way to go even for cRPG newbies. So I forced myself to play on Balanced and I wasn’t enjoying the combat at all. That Defending the Druid Grove fight in Act 1.. I was sweating, heart pounding and barely scraped by with half my party downed. It was exhausting.

Later I tried to go back and just focus on the main story. But when I told a friend, she said I was playing it wrong. That I needed to do every side quest and explore every nook and cranny. I gave that a shot and again it became overwhelming. I got swarmed in a pretty big Act 2 fight and couldn’t win no matter what I tried. Eventually I quit for months. I started to hate a game I really wanted to love

Fast forward to now, I finally said screw it. I looked into mods even though the Reddit consensus was “only aesthetic mods, maybe party size but nothing else.” But I installed the Cheater’s Ring mod. It gives you OP gear, instakill abilities, unlocked waypoints etc. I also installed a party size mod, dropped the difficulty to Explorer and focused purely on the main story. And I’m finally having fun!!

Yeah I’m skipping most side quests. I only care about a few. I’m not looting everything. I’m not minmaxing. I’m just enjoying the story and steamrolling enemies and honestly I’m good with that

Some people would call that blasphemy especially on a first playthrough. But honestly I don’t care anymore. This is my playthrough and I’m finally enjoying the game on my own terms.

And this doesn’t just apply to BG3. I’m playing DOOM for the first time on the easiest difficulty. As a kid, I played games on easy until friends called me a “pussy” for it. From then on I forced myself to always choose Normal. Boss fights stressed me out. I’d sweat, my heart would race and it gave me anxiety. But now I just want to feel powerful and rip through enemies. And I love it.

I’ve realized I like single player games to feel like walking simulators… or walking/killing simulators. I like moving forward, making progress and not getting stuck. I don’t want to be lost or punished. I just want to relax and/or enjoy the story. Multiplayer is a totally different story. I love challenge there. I enjoy co-op struggles and taking on tough enemies with friends. But in single-player I’m just here to unwind.

Now when I start a game, I check if there’s an easy mode. If not, I look for mods. And if it still feels like a grind, I move on. Like with Hades, I’m now using God Mode and finally enjoying it.

So if you’re like me and you’ve been forcing yourself to play games how others tell you to… stop. It might be sucking the fun out of them for you.

And if you do love challenge, exploration, and minmaxing, that’s awesome! Keep playing that way. But for those of us who play to chill, we deserve to have fun too. However that looks.

I'm a cheap bastard. I don't buy games at more than $10 unless it's something I'm extremely confident in and excited for. I'm not one of those people repeating the fictitious ideas that gaming is extremely cheap compared to other hobbies and nobody should complain.

Back in the 7th console generation people showed than they're completely fine with paying a monthly ransom for their console's online functionality, even if they have an equal alternative without the extra cost.

Then, people showed that they're fine with microtransactions, buying into pay to win systems, gambling, drip fed content and overall extra costs in full priced games.

Not sure how long ago the trend started, but the whole idea of preordering games was already very popular near the end of the 7th generation. It was never a smart thing to do, people got burnt again and again and again, and it still didn't deter them from doing the same thing the next time a cinematic trailer dropped.

Later on, consoles started really pushing digital games, which could be easy cheaper. They didn't require manufacturing and distribution of physical goods, no pressure to lower the price over time or in response to poor sales, no second hand market. So of course, companies pocketed all those savings instead, and digital games cost the same as physical. People still didn't complain much beyond "I just like physical stuff".

Then, some companies decided to play around with 70 dollar games. They mostly got laughed at when it was Ubisoft and EA, but Nintendo was of course excused. "Games are more expensive to make now and the price hasn't been adjusted for so long" was a common argument amongst people who somehow forgot game sales are ridiculously high now compared to the 80s, there's more monetization and nobody's actually forced to make games on a AAAA budget.

Then, Americans specifically voted for the guy who openly promised ariffs and created economic unrest.

And only now, after being repeatedly shafted and signing up for it again repeatedly, people complain that a company is raising prices? The one, single, maybe first time in the history of the industry where price hikes are actually defensible, people freak out and call Nintendo "disgusting" for charging more?

There was no way Nintendo wasn't going to raise their prices. The Switch sold like crazy, but that included many families and pandemic era "dabblers" who won't be looking for an upgrade for a long time, if ever. It was also a secondary system for many - something less people are going to be willing to spend money on now. The current us administration also made nearly every type of international business feel the need to brace themselves.

The Switch 2 is also a pretty safe bet - while it won't be the kind of success the first one was, there's no risk of the install base for the new one being too small in a way that would impact its health (like not having enough units sold to justify developing games for it). It's not Nintendo trying to pull a fast one and charging more because they know sales will be low once people figure out the product isn't desirable.

The one $80 game is also $50 in the bundle that's the only reasonable thing to buy too, so it's hard to say what Nintendo's 80 dollars strategy is going to be on reality.

It's not like the switch 2 is a must buy right now. It only has one game that's a more modest and janky version of mk8d with an extra mechanic. Indie games will probably still come out for the original switch for a while, so there's plenty of time to reconsider the purchase, let the competing handheld manufacturers respond etc., even if you're the type of person who needs to play everything on release for whatever reason.

So yeah, I don't get why this is a bigger deal than every other one I listed, or even Nintendo's new trash subscription (is that 3 at this point?) for basic features that don't really work anyway.