Games Discussion Thread

[Sinfulwolf]

Re: Games Discussion Thread

Infinity Ward is already pretty much collapsed after Activision took their creative heads to court, and fired them.

 

[lurker]

Re: Games Discussion Thread

New Kid Icarus trailer. Looks spiffy but agreeably they created the new look practically off the Brawl appearance.

Not that that's a BAD thing...

You must be registered to see the links

 

[Chibichibi]

Re: Games Discussion Thread

You must be registered to see the links

._.

W.T.F.

A Dark Disney game? Taking Mickey back to his mischievous roots? I am confused. I want to laugh at this game but it's compelling me.

 

[Kusanagi]

Re: Games Discussion Thread

You must be registered to see the links

._.

W.T.F.

A Dark Disney game? Taking Mickey back to his mischievous roots? I am confused. I want to laugh at this game but it's compelling me.

It sounds awesome.

You must be registered to see the links

 

[Cactuses]

Re: Games Discussion Thread

...I'll just leave guys this to discuss in the meantime;

You must be registered to see the links

 

[Kusanagi]

Re: Games Discussion Thread

...I'll just leave guys this to discuss in the meantime;

You must be registered to see the links

. . .

 

[Rule 34]

Re: Games Discussion Thread

So I picked up a game called Grotesque Tactics Premium Edition, published by a German company and (I assume) scheduled for an international release. Despite its relative shortness (it took me one week to get through it) I did rather enjoy it.
It's been described as fairly humorous, and while it rarely made me laugh out hard, it did manage to keep a constant smile on my face. You control a group of up to 10 characters, ranging from the chronically depressed sword fighter Drake to the unbearably arrogant knight Holy Avatar to the cleptomanic goblin thief Rukel to a trio of 3 half-naked maidens (which all need to be saved). The highlight is probably the barbarian West, who not only is talking in ebonics, bro, but also has flashbacks to the Vietkong war, where the Kong, a race of apemen, decimated his squad.

Combat is turn-based in the vein of HoMM and happens on the same map that you explore on. Besides the basic attack, every character has two additional mana-consuming abilities that help you during combat. For example, Drake can blind an opponent to lower their chance of hitting, and Holy Avatar can instantly eliminate weak creatures. On the other hand, every character has obsessions that can hinder them in combat. The obsession bar fills when certain conditions are met (the character suffers damage or scores a hit, for example). Holy Avatar starts telling long-winded stories that put everybody around him to sleep, and the goblin thief throws a flash bomb and teleports to a strong hero.
One thing that sticks out in combat is that neither Drake nor Holy Avatar are allowed to bite the dust. As they are both meant to fight in the front lines, this can lead to a bit of frustration, especially when fighting stronger enemies.

Now on to the bad things. The camera is static (as far as I can tell) and tends to bounce around wildly when objects like pillars or stairs block the view. The graphics are absolutely sub-standard, but at least it will run on lower-powered machines as well. It does have hand-drawn character portraits that grant more detail to the figures.
The game was developed by a very small independent company, and as such I can cut them some slack, but especially the camera bit still hurts the gameplay. Now and then the game crashes, but only very rarely and not in the game-breaking amount that Dragon Age did. A bug locks your camera when you get to the edge of a map, but pressing the move buttons for your characters brings it back to them. The story is very linear and barely has any sidequests (or rather, it has a bunch of sidequests that you are FORCED to take).

On the whole, Grotesque Tactics Premium Edition has barely any grave mistakes, and if you're looking for something to cheer you up a bit and poses some challenge, you may want to pick it up if you can get it for a reasonable price. It's not in stores outside of Germany yet (I think), but if you like turn-based tactical combat, you should give it a shot.

 

[Serpentar]

Re: Games Discussion Thread

Smaller companies despite some of the stumbling blocks they trip over on the whole produce games that are about as entertaining as a major title. I remeber playing the Exile series a few years ago, by Spiderweb Software. While graphically and sound wise it was meh. The story and combat(turnbased) was fairly in depth.

The guy, believe its just one fella, has moved on to an isometric 3dish type setup with Avernum. Its a RPG that gives you so many points and you spend points or gain them by taking on advantages and disadvantages. Even a race selection of Lizards, Humans, and Felines.

 

[Rule 34]

Re: Games Discussion Thread

Okay, guys. There's officially a Dragon Age 2 website, albeit with very little content yet.

You must be registered to see the links

I'm pumped, even though I've heard some disconcerting things that I don't really have an English-speaking source for. For example, the main character is named "Hawke" (is this going to be a Shepard thing?) and was a refugee during the Blight. This essentially means that there probably will be only one origin - but then again, part 2 doesn't have the "Origin" subtitle.

The magazine from whose website I draw the info will have an extensive (and largely exclusive) report on it in their next issue, I'll probably be able to tell you guys more then.

EDIT: In the meantime,

You must be registered to see the links

should help you along. For example, it's confirmed that the main character will actually SAY all his lines.

EDIT the 2nd: The more I read, the more horrified I get. Probably no Ferelden at all, no grand evil to fight, no RACE SELECTION?

 

[Chibichibi]

Re: Games Discussion Thread

I am disturbed ;_;

 

[Tassadar]

Re: Games Discussion Thread

Well, looks like I'm not playing Dragon Age 2 then. They're committing the cardinal sin of RPGs by assuming that we would give a shit about some unimportant ignoramus without any other reason than that he's the main character.

 

[Incubus]

Re: Games Discussion Thread

I for one am glad to see they didn't bow to the pressure of whining fans wanting more races/classes/origins.

By focusing on a single character rather than allowing for a variety of options and trying to force everything down the same story, they can focus on what really matters, the actual game plot. The more freedom in character creation, the harder it is to tie it all into the one story, and I'd hate to see it forced.

I'm also glad they've moved on to new characters, having the same character starring in things wears thin after a while, and lets face it, I found it forced enough in Awakening, although considering my ending to Origins that's not too surprising.

 

[Newbie]

Re: Games Discussion Thread

Well, looks like I'm not playing Dragon Age 2 then. They're committing the cardinal sin of RPGs by assuming that we would give a shit about some unimportant ignoramus without any other reason than that he's the main character.

This right here is a bit upsetting. We've got all of three facts about this game, and you're already shutting it down, and you're likely not the only one who is. Let me point this out: At the start of any given origin story in DA:O, you are basically some unimportant ignoramus that nobody would give a shit about except that you are the main character. Am I wrong? Well, in the story you can find the corpses of most of the origin characters you didn't pick, and the ones that aren't spelled out are simply ignored. These are all non-essential personnel.

 

[Tassadar]

Re: Games Discussion Thread

This right here is a bit upsetting. We've got all of three facts about this game, and you're already shutting it down, and you're likely not the only one who is. Let me point this out: At the start of any given origin story in DA:O, you are basically some unimportant ignoramus that nobody would give a shit about except that you are the main character. Am I wrong? Well, in the story you can find the corpses of most of the origin characters you didn't pick, and the ones that aren't spelled out are simply ignored. These are all non-essential personnel.

The difference being that I actually got to create my unimportant ignoramus, rather than just pick from three starting packages that essentially change nothing but the hat and t-shirt the character is going to be wearing in the opening cutscene. The fact that I actually created the character, rather than just picked a pre-made one, gave me an easy way to identify with them, and therefore with the world around them. About the only thing I really liked about DA:O was that your choice of origin actually changed a good bit of the dialogue and story progression, meaning that your initial choices actually mattered.

For example: My first character was a human mage. So, when I arrived at the dwarves recruitment quest, I supported Bhelen over the older guy (I forgot all the names, since it's been so long, and I don't care enough to go look them up.) I killed the crazy Paragon, got the crown from the golem, went back, killed the old guy when he inevitably attacked me in the council chamber, and didn't give two shits about the place after that. My second character was a dwarf noble. Changed how I did that quest completely when I finally came to it. Changed how I did the Mages Tower quest completely too.

Since they're taking that aspect of the narrative out, they've left me with a metric ton of pointless and artificial dialogue, shitty unbalanced combat, and a story which doesn't even have the driving force of a conflict that the first game had. I have no connection to the world or the story at that point, and that takes away the most important part of an RPG: the idea that my actions as a player actually matter to the storyline.

 

[Sinfulwolf]

Re: Games Discussion Thread

You're all assuming that you won't get to choose your origins. Why? Bioware let you choose your upbringing and your military background in Mass Effect, which changed a little bit of dialogue throughout the game. Seeing as we've seen origin really come into effect for Dragon Age: Origins, perhaps choosing a simple background can really alter everything.

1) Hawke is voiced. Awesome. I love the female voice actor for Shepard in Mass Effect, and the way she delivers her lines. Having my character say lines in this sequel will just let me get connected to them.

2) Yes we have only human, but we still get plenty of character creation. I can choose my gender, how Hawke looks, my class.

So essentially, one of the big nuances is that we don't get a race. Sure it's a little annoying, but at the same time lets them build up this character that is more in depth than any character I had in Dragon Age: Origins. Sure I could fill in my own back story, but when she just kinda looked around at the final battle and Alistair gave this huge stirring speech to the troops I kinda went: "Wow, my character doesn't seem that important,". You are an aside despite some mentions by the chief characters, and despite that you beat the blight almost single handedly!

I enjoy Mass Effect a lot. I enjoy Dragon Age more because I'm a huge fan of fantasy, and I love the story. However, if some of the elements I absolutely adore from Mass Effect snake into Dragon Age II (More in depth main character, good dialogue system) I'll be very very happy. Even if I don't get to have pointy ears, or be at knee level with every human in the world.

The other thing people are worried about is the lack of origins. There hasn't been enough revealed about the game. Perhaps they'll implement a Mass Effect style "choose your background up to events of DA 1" to see how people react to you. Or better yet, have your actions in game determine how people react to you, making me feel like I'm having an impact on the game rather than have very little despite seeming like the most powerful person in the game world.

Also, define "unimportant" Tassadar. You're character is apparantly a champion of Kirkwall. You're actions are supposed to drive the story, how much they do so I don't know. But really, for the most part in Origins, unless I came upon a special character, I didn't feel like my origin mattered too much.

Origins had it's day, let Bioware develop their game, and lets see what comes out of it. I've yet to be dissapointed by them.

 

[Sinfulwolf]

Re: Games Discussion Thread

Also have to point out that the second game's story takes place over 10 years. That's a long time to set up some good political intrigue, show changes, and have an impact. Playing different ways should really change things up in that kind of time frame.

 

[Tassadar]

Re: Games Discussion Thread

My problems with how they're doing DA2, in list form.

1) They're making a character driven story in which the first bit of character development was that the main character ran from the Lothering in the first game and fled the country with his tail between his legs, rather than stay and help fight against the Blight. I don't know about you, but the idea of playing as a character whos first known act brands him as a coward isn't very appealing. And it certainly isn't a characteristic of anyone I'd call a champion.

2) The characters title practically guarantees that the players in-game choices will make little to no difference in the long run. I'd like the option to murder the entire populace of Kirkwall and steal their trousers, if it's a character driven storyline and my actions are supposed to be important. Good examples of the ability to choose like this come from ME1 and 2, KotOR 1 and 2, Morrowind, Daggerfall, and even Baldurs Gate 2. All those games started out with the main characters eventual destiny largely unclear, and they did that for a very good reason. How about I get to choose whether or not I become the "Champion of Kirkwall" huh Bioware?

3) Sequels should add, not subtract. Taking away the name and race options takes away most of the roleplaying, and for what in return? Especially since the classes in DA all play practically the same. I don't give a a shit about the main character having spoken dialogue, it does nothing to add to the immersion, since if the story and setting aren't good enough to do that on their own, Nolan Norths voice isn't going to help it along in the slightest. They're essentially adding limits and giving nothing in return. Had they not kept the Dragon Age name, maybe I would have been less irritated.

4) The universe and combat of ME were good enough to survive the change from epic to character-driven narrative. The same cannot be said for DA. For the universe bit, there will apparently be no Darkspawn or Grey Wardens, so it's like having a Star Wars story on some distant backwater planet with no Jedi, bounty hunters, storm troopers, or smugglers. Same setting, with none of the things that are actually important or interesting about it. As for the combat, DA:O had some of the worst combat I've ever had in a single player RPG. If you're going to force the craptastic MMORPG combat with the floating numbers and non-existent interaction, can you at least make it easy so I can get it done and get back to the actually good parts of the game?

And, finally, yes, Bioware can do whatever they like with their series. I'm just not going to buy it when it turns out to be a piece of shit.

Edit: Also, as for the whole; "He's the Champion of Kirkwall!" thing: Why should we care about Kirkwall again?

 

[Alias]

Re: Games Discussion Thread

My problems with how they're doing DA2, in list form.

1) They're making a character driven story in which the first bit of character development was that the main character ran from the Lothering in the first game and fled the country with his tail between his legs, rather than stay and help fight against the Blight. I don't know about you, but the idea of playing as a character whos first known act brands him as a coward isn't very appealing. And it certainly isn't a characteristic of anyone I'd call a champion.

Yes, because giving room for a character to develop is never a good idea. Sorry, but that argument is completely ridiculous.

2) The characters title practically guarantees that the players in-game choices will make little to no difference in the long run. I'd like the option to murder the entire populace of Kirkwall and steal their trousers, if it's a character driven storyline and my actions are supposed to be important. Good examples of the ability to choose like this come from ME1 and 2, KotOR 1 and 2, Morrowind, Daggerfall, and even Baldurs Gate 2. All those games started out with the main characters eventual destiny largely unclear, and they did that for a very good reason. How about I get to choose whether or not I become the "Champion of Kirkwall" huh Bioware?

Just because the word 'Champion' has positive connotations doesn't mean the title means anything positive. But that's a weak argument and I actually probably agree with you on this one.

3) Sequels should add, not subtract. Taking away the name and race options takes away most of the roleplaying, and for what in return? Especially since the classes in DA all play practically the same. I don't give a a shit about the main character having spoken dialogue, it does nothing to add to the immersion, since if the story and setting aren't good enough to do that on their own, Nolan Norths voice isn't going to help it along in the slightest. They're essentially adding limits and giving nothing in return. Had they not kept the Dragon Age name, maybe I would have been less irritated.

I'm going to wait until I know more about the game to see if they've actually detracted anything. I mean just because they removed one thing you like doesn't mean the game is worse off for it.

4) The universe and combat of ME were good enough to survive the change from epic to character-driven narrative. The same cannot be said for DA. For the universe bit, there will apparently be no Darkspawn or Grey Wardens, so it's like having a Star Wars story on some distant backwater planet with no Jedi, bounty hunters, storm troopers, or smugglers. Same setting, with none of the things that are actually important or interesting about it. As for the combat, DA:O had some of the worst combat I've ever had in a single player RPG. If you're going to force the craptastic MMORPG combat with the floating numbers and non-existent interaction, can you at least make it easy so I can get it done and get back to the actually good parts of the game?

I wouldn't say ME succeeded at transitioning from epic to character, as ME2 felt extremely watered down for me, but I see your point (try playing Tales of Symphonia and then the sequel, Dawn of a New World for a fantastic transition from epic storyline to incredible character-driven storyline). I am going to have to go back to what I said before, though. You don't KNOW what the story is, or what the conflict is, or really anything about it... so I don't really understand why you're already raising your arms in frustration and throwing the towel in.

 

[Tassadar]

Re: Games Discussion Thread

Yes, because giving room for a character to develop is never a good idea. Sorry, but that argument is completely ridiculous.

Characters are generally blank slates to start with for a reason. When you read the back of a book, how much do you learn about the main character? Do you learn about a heavily staining act, and completely out of context to boot, on the back cover? No, you don't. Not unless the series has been running for a long while, at least, and at the point it's usually a "for the fans" book anyway. You put the character development in the story, not in the teaser. Maybe it's just bad marketing, but it's still a black spot that Hawke's going to have to work VERY hard to get rid of.

I'm going to wait until I know more about the game to see if they've actually detracted anything. I mean just because they removed one thing you like doesn't mean the game is worse off for it.

Yes it does, since any argument about a work of art is by its very nature subjective. They're taking, in point of fact, the ONLY thing I liked about the first game out of the sequel. That, in my mind, makes the game worse off for it.

I wouldn't say ME succeeded at transitioning from epic to character, as ME2 felt extremely watered down for me, but I see your point (try playing Tales of Symphonia and then the sequel, Dawn of a New World for a fantastic transition from epic storyline to incredible character-driven storyline). I am going to have to go back to what I said before, though. You don't KNOW what the story is, or what the conflict is, or really anything about it... so I don't really understand why you're already raising your arms in frustration and throwing the towel in.

First impressions are important, and the first impression of DA2 was nothing short of exactly the wrong way I would have liked the series to go. It doesn't help that I found the first game as nothing more than a massive disappointment. Also, to me not knowing details about the story or conflict is unimportant in a character-based narrative, because the focus is meant to be on the character, and his reactions to events, not the consequences of the events themselves.

 

[Newbie]

Re: Games Discussion Thread

My problems with how they're doing DA2, in list form.

1) They're making a character driven story in which the first bit of character development was that the main character ran from the Lothering in the first game and fled the country with his tail between his legs, rather than stay and help fight against the Blight. I don't know about you, but the idea of playing as a character whos first known act brands him as a coward isn't very appealing. And it certainly isn't a characteristic of anyone I'd call a champion.

I'm not entirely certain fleeing the blight marks him as a coward. We don't have anything about his past, so maybe he had no reason to stay in Lothering and he's a pragmatist? Maybe he did kill a few dozen darkspawn to help save a few people and fled eventually? Maybe he had a wife and children he heartlessly abandoned out of fear and self-preservation? All we know is that he escaped, he didn't die fighting. It makes no mention of when or how he did it.

2) The characters title practically guarantees that the players in-game choices will make little to no difference in the long run. I'd like the option to murder the entire populace of Kirkwall and steal their trousers, if it's a character driven storyline and my actions are supposed to be important. Good examples of the ability to choose like this come from ME1 and 2, KotOR 1 and 2, Morrowind, Daggerfall, and even Baldurs Gate 2. All those games started out with the main characters eventual destiny largely unclear, and they did that for a very good reason. How about I get to choose whether or not I become the "Champion of Kirkwall" huh Bioware?

The character's title of Champion seems to be a starting condition. You start as the champion of kirkwall, that says nothing about how well you hold the office or for how long. It's entirely possible that you are to be assassinated in the midst of some political intrigue and escape into the night, loosing your titles and resources because you're supposed to be dead. It's also entirely possible that enough dickotry will get you ejected from the office.

3) Sequels should add, not subtract. Taking away the name and race options takes away most of the roleplaying, and for what in return? Especially since the classes in DA all play practically the same. I don't give a a shit about the main character having spoken dialogue, it does nothing to add to the immersion, since if the story and setting aren't good enough to do that on their own, Nolan Norths voice isn't going to help it along in the slightest. They're essentially adding limits and giving nothing in return. Had they not kept the Dragon Age name, maybe I would have been less irritated.

Changing the character creation is not the same as subtracting. As Sin pointed out, the character creation in ME was pretty damn thorough for a game that had a standard starting character. KOTOR let you play through the majority of your origin. This could be a combination of both, or it could be something entirely new. And one of the promises made was that Bioware was going to "fix" the combat. That's a fair argument for them learning from their mistakes.

4) The universe and combat of ME were good enough to survive the change from epic to character-driven narrative. The same cannot be said for DA. For the universe bit, there will apparently be no Darkspawn or Grey Wardens, so it's like having a Star Wars story on some distant backwater planet with no Jedi, bounty hunters, storm troopers, or smugglers. Same setting, with none of the things that are actually important or interesting about it. As for the combat, DA:O had some of the worst combat I've ever had in a single player RPG. If you're going to force the craptastic MMORPG combat with the floating numbers and non-existent interaction, can you at least make it easy so I can get it done and get back to the actually good parts of the game?

ME kept many of the same characters, enemies, and elements. This is a bit more ambitious than that. And again, Bioware has promised to "fix" the combat. I don't know what they mean, but they said it.

And, finally, yes, Bioware can do whatever they like with their series. I'm just not going to buy it when it turns out to be a piece of shit.

Edit: Also, as for the whole; "He's the Champion of Kirkwall!" thing: Why should we care about Kirkwall again?

TL;DR: This is the literal definition of prejudice: Pre-judging based on limited, superficial information. We know next to nothing, and you are still going to get your knickers in a twist. And that's fine, you have every right. It's just a bit silly.