I hadn’t considered unlocking difficulties as metaprogression, but yea in that case I think it’s a fair mechanic (to be clear, I tend to drop these games when I get to the inevitable difficulty spike at the final area/boss, so I haven’t really experienced it, as the only one I can clear is Rabbit and Steel which has a traditional easy/normal/hard/harder selection).

Unlocking content to ease players in I think is weird and counter productive, as often even failing gets you further in the process and you might not have learned what the game was trying to teach you by delaying something. You might then be in a slightly harder game without having progressed as a player.

What I really don’t like are the permanent leveling/modifiers you find in games like Hades. I feel like they go against the basic idea of a rougelike/lite, since you can/need (depending on the game) to grind.

I played Resident Evil Requiem. I really liked it, especially Grace’s sections. Leon’s sections weren’t really my favourite, but they were enjoyable enough.

I ended up replaying halfway through the remake of the first game too after Requiem, although now I kinda want to go back and replay 9.

I too was a bit disappointed when I first played it and reached ending A, thinking that was all there was. I continued months later to try the different mechanics and realised that they are not endings, but more or less just chapters/acts.

It’s honestly a really weird decision to present the game like this, especially since route A is the least interesting one (IMO).

FYI (with slight spoilers):

For me it’s any roguelike (or roguelite) I try. I may find the premise of the gameplay interesting, but having to replay the run from the start (while very likely not learning anything new, because I can’t repeat the situation that gave me trouble before) ruins it pretty quickly. Even the ones I kinda like (Rabbit And Steel and One Step From Eden) can’t keep my attention for long and I end up playing them very rarely.

Metaprogression in roguelites makes it even worse because I know that the runs are gonna be unfair from the start to make the upgrades work.

This week I started Final Fantasy Tactics, but I’ve played it only for a few hours (a bit less than 10h). I think I prefer Fire Emblem’s gameplay, this one feels too grindy and the combat seems a bit shallow.

Finished Raging Loop, the first ~20h were great, but I’m shocked at how bad the finale is. It was still worth it for the rest of the story tho.

Played through Resident Evil 4 Remake during the weekend. I think Village realized the action horror gameplay better, I found neither the action to be good nor the horror to be scary in this one (I have never finished the original RE4, but from what I played of it, it seems the same). I am excited for Requiem tho, which I’ll play next.

Finally, I just started Utawarerumono Prelude to the Fallen, but I’ve played too little to say anything.

deleted by creator

Looks like an interesting project, but I can’t understand what’s the advantage of using weird symbols.

Welcome back!

This week I played (read?) Paranormasight: The Seven Mysteries of Honjo which I really enjoyed. From the intro I kinda expected more from the gameplay tho.

I’ve also started playing Fatal Frame: Mask of the Lunar Eclipse and was considering replaying Xenoblade Chronicles X, but the Switch 2 edition turned out to be a downgrade.

I agree. I’m not someone who is interested in the singleplayer modes, so my opinion probably means nothing here, but since the gameplay is inherently dependent on a human opponent, I feel like they need to be more than just VS matches against the CPU, to either experiment with the gameplay or introduce you to the story and characters.

I mean… I’m not saying it’s good, but considering most games wouldn’t get free characters as updates (I think only MBTL did it, and it’s probably because most of the free characters are from Fate), I think it’s better to be able to optionally buy a set of characters if you want to play them, instead of having to buy a whole new version of the game to continue playing.

That’s not what I meant.

The article mentions paying for cosmetics instead of characters. With how f2p/live-service games are currently designed, I’d imagine that means things like battle passes (which are present already in some games like SF6 and GBFVS), rotating stores and/or lootboxes.

I honestly don’t see how single player “content” could be of any help. Sure, situational training like Strive and a few other games have (UNI I think had it?) would be nice to have, but I think the main obstacle for a lot of players is the (gameplay) interaction with another real person. I can’t say how other genres fix this (or if they even do), but my guess is that the mechanics themselves are less restrictive and a bit more forgiving.

Also, personally, I prefer buying characters for relatively cheap rather than having the usual f2p predatory crap. They should obviously be free for training tho.

I hadn’t been following it as I don’t like tag fighters and don’t trust f2p games, but what’s wrong with it in terms of gameplay? I was under the impression that the initial reception (even when it was in beta) wasn’t bad.

I’ve mostly been playing Arknights Endfield. After a while I got my team set up and it’s become a bit too repetitive. For some reason I expected better from this one than other gachas but it ended up being as shallow and boring as all others.

I’ve played a bit of Deadlock, I couldn’t try any of the new characters tho. I’m trying to get back into Rabbit&Steel. I haven’t played in a while so it feels like starting from zero.

I’ve also tried the demo for Magenta Horizon. It’s not my style of game, it feels inspired a lot by Ninja Gaiden, which I can’t get into, but it seems really well made and the artstyle is pretty interesting.

Oh yea, I forgot about that series. I have the first two games, but haven’t really played much. I remember trying the first one a few years ago looking for something to play after MHW, but I think I dismissed them because of the higher speed and less weight in combat. I’ll have to try them again.

Another Monster Hunter “clone” I should probably try is Toukiden.

That said, it’s possible I misunderstood what you mean because I haven’t played older MH games or Xenoblade.

I realize I’m being a bit too vague, as I’m not sure how to describe clearly what I’m thinking about.

You mentioned both DMC3 and Dark Souls and while I don’t remember very well either fight, I do think that DMC3-5 (and Bayonetta too sometimes) allow you to do what I’m thinking about with most bosses, while normal encounters I feel are more about crowd control. On the other hand, Dark Souls and the other soulslike I played feel more focused on reacting to attacks, like the newer MH games.

It’s less important in the newer games, since the monsters are less predictable and their attacks track a lot, and the hunters get parries or other options (in GU and Rise in particular), but you often need to position yourself defensively to preemptively avoid attacks and usually keep attacking. For example: the Rathian charge is instant, so you should keep to her side to avoid it and her other frontal attacks like the fireballs.

Pretty often you could just walk out of attacks if you knew they were coming.

Not really what I’m looking for, but I do remember having fun with the original Mount & Blade when I played it ages ago so I’ll check it out!

Haven’t played it yet, but I was planning on playing the first one. It does look fun, so I might try it sooner rather than later.