Topic: Games you've recently beat

@JohnnyShoulder @Simon_Fitzgerald I came so close to buying Titanfall 2 when it was $7 for the ultimate edition in the recent PSN sale. In the end I knew it was going to go straight to the backlog so I passed, but I hope I can see it for that price again. Or better yet, maybe PS Plus freebie!
I don’t like FPS typically and especially not multiplayer. So - considering the SP campaign only, what is best for a FPS casual who really likes story driven experiences —
Titanfall 2, Wolfenstein The New Order, or Metro Redux?

@Th3solution Oooooh that is a toughie! 🤔

Titanfall 2 has the more memorable levels and set pieces. The mobility and traversal is ace, feels really awesome. The story is a bit naff though, as are the characters with the best being the main mech. Which says a lot about the the rest of them.

Wolfenstein on the other hand does story and character development very well, which surprised me. I found myself caring about some of your comrades in the game and really despising some of the evil characters in the game. I found the pacing a bit off though with certain levels later becoming a bit of a trudge to get through, before ramping it up again for the last couple of sections.

If you can buy both as they are both great games, but if you can only buy one go for Titanfall 2. It is on there shorter side too, so shouldn't eat into your backlog too much. 😉

Only played some of the first Metro game so can't really comment on that.

@JohnnyShoulder Thanks! I heard Wolfenstein was kinda difficult, so I’ve shied away from it since I’m not good at the genre. I’m not sure I’ll buy right now, and I’ll wait and see if TF2 gets the heavy discount again. The Metro redux games were also just on sale really cheap - I think $5 a piece, but I wasn’t sure since it seemed also to have a horror vibe, which is not necessarily my favorite either. It’s just every now and then I get an inkling to play a FPS, and of all my voluminous backlog, the only thing in there that is even close to a FPS is Deus Ex Mankind Divided.

@Th3solution all the wolfenstein games are great imo. Maybe my favorite single player fps. For some reason I just couldn't get into titanfall 2, I need to try to play it again. If you do decide to get metro, don't be dumb like me and buy metro redux and not realize it includes both games. I bought the second metro game after I purchased redux...

@Th3solution I’ve not heard the Wolfenstein games being tough. They can be frustrating as sections feel made to play in stealth but often the DOOM style run-and-gun is the way to go, which can feel a bit disingenuous. Great games though.

@Th3solution I don't recall Wolfenstein being particularly difficult. And I probably played it on normal like I usually do.

The Metro games have horror elements, I wouldn't say they are flat out horror like Residential Evil 7. IIRC I wasn't that keen on the shooting in the first game which is which is why I gave up on it.

@Th3solution Yeah, Wolfenstein isn't hard. Fairly standard corridor shooter tbf - entertaining though, I thought the first was too long though. Very much outstayed it's welcome by the time I'd finished it.

@Th3solution Wolfenstein: The New Order is a solid game, if a little uncomfortable to play at times (it's not exactly a shy franchise). It can be difficult if you're somebody who doesn't play shooters regularly, like me, but if your first approach to an area doesn't quite work, there's always another route, angle or crate of ammo somewhere; you just have to find it, but the trial-and-error isn't as relentless or boring as in many other games.

It also feels like a complete experience, which only adds to the disappointment of The New Colossus. If you have a blast with The New Order and want more, look for The Old Blood before going direct for the sequel, which had an underwhelming core game and a couple decent DLCs.

@RogerRoger I’m still torn on the latest game. It was more of the same, which is fine, and I quite liked the story. I just think there was a bit too much filler and side missions so the main storyline lost its momentum for me. I wish I’d completed the main story and then gone back to do everything else.

@Thrillho @ellsworth004 @KALofKRYPTON @JohnnyShoulder Thanks for the very useful feedback! There’s nothing quite as useful as hearing real world player opinions. At the end of the day, I might have to wait on trying any of them since I have Spider-Man staring me straight in the face right now.
Edit: and @RogerRoger - sorry I missed you the first post. 😀

@Th3solution No worries - for context - I pretty much weight all single player FPS experiences against Resistance 3, New Order has many of the same sensibilities - but I was genuinely happy to have it over and done with.

I have some reservations about Spider-Man. I was telling myself that I wouldn't buy it on launch day, but thought I'd probably end up getting it. Given the recent DLC schedule, I'm a bit concerned that it's a bit of a light package.

@Thrillho I didn't even touch the side quests or filler; I wanted to go back to them later, but never did. I think my problem was the opening and ending missions (the ones aboard the giant airship, and the early one in New York) were of quite poor, uninspired quality. It felt like a bland PS3 game at times. The middle of the game was great, got quite inventive and was well-paced, but it was bookended by an underwhelming kinda "Oh, is this it?" feeling, and the less said about the epilogue, the better.

Interesting that somebody who took their time and played everything the game has to offer has a similarly-conflicted opinion, albeit for different reasons. I think that says a lot. Two of the three DLC chapters were decent, though, so if you see the Season Pass going cheap, it may be a worthwhile purchase for a rainy Sunday.

@Th3solution That's okay. I'm very missable.

@KALofKRYPTON I hear ya there. I was a little disappointed in the information about a quick release of DLC too. They say the story takes a solid 20 hours to complete, which is a tiny bit light sounding for AAA open world games nowadays. It’s too late for me since I already preordered and paid for it. I have faith in Insomniac to provide a solid experience, but I don’t like that practice of DLC being ready to go on or near day 1. I don’t mind a high quality shorter experience (in fact I prefer it to a huge long epic that overstays it’s welcome), but like I said in the comment section of the article, DLC content seems like it’s just a way to increase the price of games (which have been $60 for ages now) without increasing the price of the game — in order to get the full experience you have to buy the season pass for $20, effectively making the game cost $80 in total.
I was hoping for something more akin to Horizon Zero Dawn, which I am rounding out hopefully soon (Not sure I’ll finish in time for Spider-Man or not.) which is a 20ish hour game if you blow through the story only but for me is going to end up being about 50+ hours due to my interest in wandering around collecting and doing side quests. Then they announced and released the Frozen Wilds much later, indicating it was truly additional bonus content, rather than held back on day 1.

@Th3solution Yeah - I mean Guerilla's post launch support is excellent, so I've little doubt that it wasn't just conceived of for the sake of having some DLC.

I don't mind a short game either, The Order for instance was excellent, well paced and well worth the price I thought.

But, for what feels like side mission content to be behind a pay wall is annoying. Hopefully I'm wrong. I'm sure it'll be a great game to play and I spent plenty of time in TASM2 just swinging about after I'd finished it.

@Th3solution @KALofKRYPTON Insomniac games have never been very long, though. Ratchet & Clank was 'light' on playtime as well, but at least there wasn't any padding at all. And I have enough faith in Insomniac that this game will be jam-packed with great moments. So, around 20 hours for 60 dollar/euro? That should be considered a fair price.

Also, let's compare it to some similar games.Remember the best superhero game of the last decade? Batman Arkham Asylum? It had only 12 hours of gameplay. Another good one, Infamous: Second Son? That's 10 hours of gameplay. Maybe you want to compare it to Sunset Overdrive? That game has 10 hours of gameplay. And remember Batman Arkham Knight? Even with all these repetitive batmobile sections, the game still didn't reach 20 hours of gameplay.

Don't go act all spoiled.

@Kidfried Second Son is a lot more than 10 hours for the plat.

I'm not talking about racing through games - and as I've said, I've not really got an issue with a well put together short game. But when potentially 10-15 hours of story gameplay is locked behind a paywall from the get-go, that's b****cks!

@Kidfried Ha, ha! Well I agree, actually. I much prefer a shorter high quality experience to one that is drawn out. Ratchet & Clank’s length was almost perfect. Of course I got it for like $30 I think. I think I paid full price for all the Arkham games and didn’t feel cheated at all (well, Akrham Knight and I don’t have a good relationship, but not because of its length). Honestly, I think most games now are probably too long. As much as I’m enjoying Horizon and Yakuza 0 now, if one does all the side content then it’s just a gargantuan task. I’m sure Spider-Man will be similar. Infamous SS has a bunch of stuff to do climbing around and doing extra side content and I’m sure I played it for over 30 hrs.
So the absolute length is perfectly fine for me at 20 hrs for $60. It’s just the thought that you’re getting an incomplete product on day 1 that gets under my skin. I don’t know why it bothers me, and I realize it doesn’t make sense, but I feel like if the content is ready to go, then it should be included in the base game. Of course I know that this is the world we live in now and season passes and DLC are just part of it. The next Ratchet & Clank will probably also have some kind of extra content you purchase where you play through a side story as Qwark or something. I’m sure I’ll happily get my money’s worth with Spider-Man, no doubt about it, but I probably won’t buy the DLC on principle. 😅

@KALofKRYPTON We don't know exact how long Spider-Man will be, but according to Insomniac it's 20 hours for the main game, not for the platinum. And platinum playing times don't tell you a lot about how much content there is in a game. Second Son was a short game, only lasted me a bit more than 15 hours, because I played the game through twice.

I don't see anything that's bullsocks here.

Creating story content costs money. So, when this game costs just as much as other superhero titles and it's just as long, no even longer than any similar game I can think of. Then why is it strange that they charge for extra?

Imagine I'd buy a pineapple everyday of the week at my local pineapple store, for 3 euro each. Then one day Insomniac starts selling pineapples, also for 3 euro each. "HEY INSOMNIAC, I'M USED TO PAYING 3 EURO FOR A PINEAPPLE, NOW GIVE ME 2 PINEAPPLES FOR 3 EURO!"

What's bullsocks here? Insomniac, who charges 3 euro for pineapples, just like the competition. Or maybe the customer, who asks for more pineapples for the same amount of money?

@Th3solution But the content isn't ready to go. It'll be done in October. They're probably hard at work. Besides, Spider-Man itself has already gone gold a month ago, and has already been pressed on disc. Digital content just travels faster than physical.

@Kidfried erm... what?

Bullsocks?

It's content that is likely already completed, waiting behind a pay wall. I don't like that. That's not asking for more for the same money, that's asking for the game.

I even object to the potential that the costumes may be obtainable via DLC only.