When I made my post about Chex Quest, it got me thinking about the classic Doom games released from 1993-1997, and I thought it would be great hearing some fellows Tilders thoughts about these classic games that can run on just about anything.

I thought of some questions, but please share anything Doom related! I think it's awesome seeing how this game has had such a lasting impact over the last 30+ years and how people continue to push this game in new and surprising ways.

• When did you first play/"get into" Doom?
• What is your favorite source port of Doom?
• What are your favorite WADs?
• What are your favorite total conversions of Doom/games built on the Doom Engine?
• What are your favorite mods for Doom?
• Do you still play Doom regularly?
• Have you introduced anyone who plays more modern shooters to Doom, and how did that go?

TLDR: I think that I don’t like Pokémon games anymore because the battle system literally puts me to sleep, I can’t be bothered to “catch them all” all over again, and there’s just nothing else about the mainline games (not even the story or anything) that makes them interesting for me. Anyone else?

Disclaimer: If you love Pokémon, then I’m very happy for you. Seriously. This isn’t a rant about the games being bad (not even the modern ones). I’m not casting judgment on the quality of the games nor the people who buy and play them. This is 100% about my astonishment at how much my personal taste for video games has changed.

I decided to share my thoughts on this matter with all of you here to see if anyone has had a similar experience.

I only got into Pokémon in the year 2000, I think. I still managed to play Red, Blue, and Yellow before Gold, Silver, and Crystal released. Out of these six, the only one I never owned was Gold. But on top of that, I played the ever-loving heck out of Stadium 1 and 2. There is a non-zero chance that I invested more than 1,000 hours into all of these games combined. I even got my mother hooked on the Stadium games. It was wild.

Then gen III rolled around, and while I did get a GBA, I somehow never managed to buy a single new Pokémon game. My guess is that I was too busy fawning over all of the crazy, weird, and fun games that I was playing on the Gamecube, two of which I spent a lot of time on: Animal Crossing and Sonic Adventure 2: Battle. So, I totally missed out on Ruby, Sapphire, Emerald, FireRed and LeafGreen. I also never played Colosseum or XD: Gale of Darkness.

I returned to the series on the NDS, with Diamond, which was a lot fun (at least I don’t remember anything negative about it), but that was close to the beginning of a period in my life where I played almost no video games, let alone Pokémon.

This may sound silly, but what I enjoy about Pokémon (or at least, what I enjoyed about gen I and II), was the adventure. Does that make sense? I loved exploring the world, befriending six “cute” creatures (I always was more interested in carrying the more animal and pet-like ones in my party), becoming the very best, like no one ever was, defeating bad guys, and learning more about the lore surrounding certain legendary Pokémon.

Side note: I did try to catch them all, but Celebi completely eluded me.

It wasn’t until like... I think, 2023? That I went back to the series and played Emerald (through cough cough “alternative” means), and forced myself to plow through the game until I beat the League. And I mean “forced”. It wasn’t like the game was bad, and I enjoyed the adventure to some extent (though the story didn’t quite “grip” me), but the grinding ground my gears (pun intended).

Yes. I had to grind. I can’t remember what my team was and at what level they were (I think around 55 each) when I reached the League, but I remember grinding at the exit of the Victory Road to raise their levels because my first attempt failed. (It’s definitely, at least partly, a skill issue. lol) I had, however, been grinding a little bit before each gym already, and whenever I did, I had to listen to podcasts or YouTube videos in the background or whatever, because I would literally fall asleep while doing it. lol

Most recently I tried HeartGold. Before that, I tried FireRed and White, and with neither of them, I managed to get past the third or fourth gym before I just couldn’t deal with the tedium anymore and gave up.

Fast-forward to this month of April.

I’ve decided to focus on GCN games, since there are many that I never had the chance to play. I replayed Metroid first (needed to scratch that itch) and had fun. Yesterday I finished Paper Mario TTYD, which was a dream come true. Been waiting 20 years to play it. I absolutely loved it.

But today I tried Pokémon Colosseum.

And... I think that I want to give up. lol

I just can’t anymore.

I think that I have become an Old Person™. lol Like, something about the battle system just literally puts me to sleep. I’m not kidding you. I was playing the game today, and whenever I had to battle, I began to feel Drowzee (pun intended).

I played for a little over an hour and then checked Bulbapedia, only to look at the list of “snatchable” Pokémon and think to myself: “Do I think that the ‘adventure’ in this game will be interesting enough to keep me grinding through all these many battles?”

My hearts tells me no. I don’t think that it will.

So, after all these years, I have to sadly conclude that I just don’t like Pokémon anymore. I can’t deal with the battle system. It’s too tedious for me. I also can’t deal with the grind of catching and raising them. Neither the adventures nor the stories catch my interest anymore. It feels all too repetitive, like I’m playing the same game over and over.

But do you know what the irony is? I have replayed Crystal a few times over the years—maybe a handful. It feels easy to pick up somehow. I still grind, but the grind doesn’t grind me down. And I am willing to bet that I could pick it up today and play it all the way to the end without getting tired. It must be the nostalgia. I don’t know how else to explain it otherwise.

I don’t think that my machine can handle playing gens VI to current through “alternative means”, so those are completely out of the question for now, but I have been following the franchise close enough that I feel skeptical that even those would entertain me.

So, I guess that’s it. I don’t like Pokémon anymore. It’s just a game but it somehow feels so tragic. lol

And I’m not sure what other GCN game to pick up instead. Any suggestions? Here are the ones that I have played so far:

• 1080° Avalanche
• Animal Crossing
• Burnout
• Fire Emblem: Path of Radiance
• The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess
• The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker
• Luigi's Mansion
• Mario Party 4
• Metroid Prime
• Metroid Prime 2: Echoes
• Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door
• Pikmin
• Resident Evil 4
• Sonic Adventure 2: Battle
• Star Fox Adventures
• Super Mario Sunshine
• Super Smash Bros. Melee

I’m mostly interested in 3D, third-person action adventure games—basically singleplayer games where you take control of a main character. I’m open to try out other genres though.

So Assassins Creed Shadows released this week, and so far the discourse surrounding the game is really all over the place with lots of good and bad reviews across the spectrum. I was a big fan of the Assassins Creed games from 1-3, and then I skipped the PS4 console generation so I didnt play any of the more recent ones. But this new one is about ninjas, which is rad, so Ive been following news about the game.

One thing I noticed, which is the main thing I want to discuss, when seeing clips of the game online is the focus on sword combat, and more specifically open combat. I dont know if this is a thing that became more of a focus in earlier games like Valhala or if its more a response to the success of Ghost of Tsushima. Im wondering if anyone else has thoughts on how the role of combat has evolved as the series has advanced.

In my personal view, a ninja assassin game should have minimal focus on direct combat. The ideal way an assassination should go is something like this:

1. Do some early missions to gather intel or do prep work

2. Take on "the approach" to your target, which will involve a combination of parkouring over rooftops and stealth kills to remove guards. Your efforts in step 1 will make this easier or harder.

3. Get into position and wait for the right moment when the target moves into the right place

4. Spring your trap, whether that be pouncing on them with a dagger or setting off an explosive or whatever

5. Drop a smoke bomb, disappear into the shadows, maybe jump off a rooftop into a haystack for good measure

When pulled off correctly, it should be like you were never there. Aside from the dead guy. If you are getting into a direct head on confrontation as a ninja, you have fucked up at ninja. To this end, I feel that in a stealth assassination game open combat should be more of a penalty for when you screw up and get caught, not part of the core strategy.

Looking back at the early games, this concept was applied in AC1. Getting into a fight with a Templar was pretty difficult and tedious. You didnt want to get stuck doing it, and if you did it was often better to just run. The times you were forced to fight head on it felt like you were trapped in a dire situation that was not to your advantage, so it was a good way to apply pressure to the player to make a scene seem tense.

In AC2 the combat was reworked and became significantly easier. I actually really like the way it was implemented. Technically you can get away with just hammering away at most weaker enemies until you break their guard, but the combat really shines when you fight defensively. If you focus in dodging and counter-kills, big fights become a thing of beauty. Ezio dodges and weaves effortlessly through the crowd, doing a slick spin slash every so often to slice a bad guys neck. Its all very stylistic and elegant and graceful in a way that makes Ezio look like a badass but is still very evocative of the idea of a master assassin.

And then AC3 is fine, I don't have a ton to say about that one.

Returning to Shadows, when I look at clips of people playing the game there is a lot of sword combat. The combat seems to often follow a pattern where the enemy will perform a fixed attack pattern with visual indications like a colored aura around their weapon, which the player must mitigate through precision by either dodge rolls or parrys, after which there will be a pause during which the player can whack at the enemy a few times and reduce their health bar. Repeat a couple times until they are killed. I think it is specifically the hacking away at an enemy like you are taking a machete to jungle foliage that I dont like about this. Whittling away at an enemy who just tanks it and soaks up damage feels decidedly un-assassiny to me.

Now, if open combat is intended to be a big part of the game then I can see why this is the case. You cant make every enemy a long drawn out chore like AC1 because if youre going to have to do this like a hundred times that will get old fast. And you cant do glorified quick time events like AC2 because itd be too quick and a major pillar of your gameplay will feel trivial. So I can see why this newer style of combat is being used, I just don't feel its a great fit for the genre.

What are your thoughts? Are you a fan of stealth-action games? Do you enjoy dodge-roll-centric combat? How would you want to see combat handled in an assassins creed type game?