>games that revolve around combat, but the combat consists of mashing Square over and over, occasionally pressing triangle
What is the appeal of God of War? It's the most monotonous thing ever. And you know what? I'm gonna say it. I feel the same way about Devil May Cry. People say it's better and God of War is a bad ripoff, but I just don't get the appeal of anything in this whole genre.
>turn based RPGs
Turn based mechanics usually end up feeling like a holdover from pen and paper RPGs. They were near mandatory then. Now a computer can do calculations faster and let us simulate real time movement. Now I don't need to just sit there politely like an honoraburu japanese samurai while an enemy walks over and slashes me with a sword. Turn-based stuff also almost always has heavier reliance on RNG, which I dislike in general. I don't like things that abstract me and my decisions and skill from the results in the game. People basically say it comes down to managing odds, but I'd rather just manage the actual outcome instead of managing odds. Games like Pokemon help me deal with it a little, since at least there it's justified in-universe as you not actually playing as the thing doing the battles, but you're just playing as a coach. But while that helps the immersion a bit, it's only a bit. I love Digimon's anime, but playing Digimon World and then having no control over battles until like a couple hours in sucks, even if it's justified in-universe as your Digimon not being well trained yet. I can kind of get into the exploration and adventure part of RPGs, but sometimes you get an RPG that doesn't even have that, but instead just have hallways where you walk from one battle to the next, and it's just nothing but turn based battle after turn based battle, with your characters just standing there in a line and exchanging blows. Why? There's no exploration or adventure, and there's no combat. I can't comprehend the fun in this. Maybe if you grind like hell you can customize your stats, but then you'd have to grind, and there's no fun in that.
All these complaints are mitigated a bit by things like grid-based RPGs, since at least there I have a tiny bit more control. The more control I have, the better.
But the worst are games like Kingdom Hearts, where they pretend its real-time, but the mechanics are fucking shit because it's clearly intended to be more like a turn based game and making it real time isn't the real point. I also hated when one of my friends tried to make me play Morrowind or something back in the day and I ended up faced with this. Worst of all worlds. I refuse to touch an Elder Scrolls or Bethesda game to this day. They got famous with casuals after I already learned how fucking shit the gameplay was, and I've been baffled ever since. I hear more RPGs these days are doing this fake real time thing, and I just don't get it. I'd take traditional turn based over this shit any day, and I don't even like that.
>FPS/TPS
Shooting is boring. I think it comes down to the fact that I again feel like I don't have as much control. I grew up with platformers and I want to jump around all over the place and interact with the terrain and go fast. These games don't let me move around as freely, typically. When they do, like say Ratchet & Clank, then it's not really a shooter anymore. Adding fun movement to a shooter is basically what the later Ratchet & Clank games are (the first one I would say is a lot heavier on platforming than shooting, but that balance shifts toward shooting with each sequel), and since they're actually fun to move around in, nobody considers them shooters.
I do kind of like stuff like Star Fox and Panzer Dragoon. I like it better when you can free fly and not just go on rails, but I still like the on rails stuff more than FPS/TPS. Maybe the heavier use of a third dimension helps. Idk. Maybe it's also just that those games have more fun presentation than most FPS/TPS, which are frequently boring looking and sounding, even the sci-fi or cartoony ones.
>MMOs or any other game made to be played online or even multiplayer only
If I wanted to socialize, there are things I could be doing other than video games. I wanna play video games because I'm a shut-in. I don't wanna deal with strangers, I don't wanna have to wait for matches, I don't wanna have them rely on me and get mad when I suck, and I don't wanna rely on them and get mad when they suck. I don't wanna have to deal with metagaming and only play a certain way because "the community" decided that's best, or have to play a certain way because everyone else only plays a certain way. I don't wanna deal with turboautists who got the game the minute it came out and have practiced every second since and made it so I'll never catch up since they got that head-start and will stomp me every time I try to play. I don't wanna deal with newfags who suck and won't provide me with a reasonable challenge. I don't wanna deal with games that will become doorstops once not enough other people want to play them anymore. I don't wanna deal with games where the developers couldn't be bothered to finish the game by actually crafting careful challenges for me to overcome, and instead just made some basic mechanics and then left it to other players to design the actual challenges.
This contributes to why I don't like many shooters, since so many are made to be multiplayer only. It also hurts fighting games, since they've been losing single player content to cater to tourneyfags who say single player doesn't matter. I loved Soul Calibur for its significant single player modes. People shat on Soul Calibur III when it came out because they said the AI was broken, which it kind of was, but only if you're a metagaming autist who looks for all the exploits, all the moves the AI isn't as good at blocking. A regular player wouldn't notice. They complained about balance, but again, you'd have to be a tourneyfag to notice. Meanwhile, there was a cool RTS-lite mode where you can take control of a unit at any time and fight in a Soul Calibur battle to get a little more control over a unit. That was cool as hell. But after that there was never significant single player content again, because the next game was online, so clearly that's all we need. No need to make actual content for people to enjoy anymore.
I like racing games, though. But at least they tend to have time trials for me to go for and stuff like that. But I do like kart racers way better than more sim-like games, largely because they tend to have way more content, and don't expect me to just have fun racing the same couple tracks over and over just because I'm playing online with strangers who might as well be NPCs.
>>791822
You can run fast by holding the Square button. But yes, the flame is basically a melee attack and not a projectile. There are pickups and powerups that let you shoot projectiles, but it's not the main point of the game. Spyro is more like Banjo Kazooie with better movement mechanics than it is like something that is wholly about the movement mechanics like Mario or whatever. Also, if you want Spyro with combat, there are the "Legend of Spyro" reboot games on PS2. They're shit and I'm still mad they made them. Spyro as a beat em up was a terrible idea. I just wanna charge and glide around.