Video Games: 'Does Not Open From This Side' Edition

[JonSnow4President]

9 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

I'd love to get total war hammer , it really takes me back to my youth! It's maybe the reason I have bought all the total war games up until this point.

 

However Rome 2 and its million add ons have given me a bit of burn out for the genre. I feel like the games are all essentially the same but with different graphics and ever so slightly different mechanics 

I've heard such bad things about Rome II, and Medeival II just didn't do it for me after an hour (might just be me being burned out from Rome). My guess is I'm probably done with that franchise.

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

Just now, JonSnow4President said:

I've heard such bad things about Rome II, and Medeival II just didn't do it for me after an hour (might just be me being burned out from Rome). My guess is I'm probably done with that franchise.

I actually loved Medieval II, probably preferred it to Rome in fact, maybe because the graphics felt so much better, maybe I just preferred the time period.. mostly I think its because there was just an interesting level of technological advancement in the game that you didn't get with the others. You went from long bow to working your way up to Cannons and early muskets. It made for true differentiation between factions and tactics. That made it really interesting for me.

Empire probably had the most potential, but utterly squandered it with crappy glitchy gameplay and mostly ugly graphics. It also suffered from pretty identikit factions.  Napoleon was probably the best game in the series in terms of battles (maybe Shogun 2 was better?) with mods, with the smoke and cannon fire was an awesome experience.

But Rome 2 lost me. It felt half assed and unfinished and there were some curious design decisions involved in it. I know its what many hardcore fans were asking for but the map was too big and too complex and the province system was awkward. I always preferred the original map from Rome 1 and Medieval 2, not the real time 3D one. 

Warhammer does look like fun however, and thats maybe something thats been missing in the franchise for a while. If I get to fight as Orcs against the Empire and have a bunch of crazy units I'd be happy. What I don't want is to have to play the same siege battle over and over again like I seem to in all the other games.

[JonSnow4President]

53 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

I actually loved Medieval II, probably preferred it to Rome in fact, maybe because the graphics felt so much better, maybe I just preferred the time period.. mostly I think its because there was just an interesting level of technological advancement in the game that you didn't get with the others. You went from long bow to working your way up to Cannons and early muskets. It made for true differentiation between factions and tactics. That made it really interesting for me.

Empire probably had the most potential, but utterly squandered it with crappy glitchy gameplay and mostly ugly graphics. It also suffered from pretty identikit factions.  Napoleon was probably the best game in the series in terms of battles (maybe Shogun 2 was better?) with mods, with the smoke and cannon fire was an awesome experience.

But Rome 2 lost me. It felt half assed and unfinished and there were some curious design decisions involved in it. I know its what many hardcore fans were asking for but the map was too big and too complex and the province system was awkward. I always preferred the original map from Rome 1 and Medieval 2, not the real time 3D one. 

Warhammer does look like fun however, and thats maybe something thats been missing in the franchise for a while. If I get to fight as Orcs against the Empire and have a bunch of crazy units I'd be happy. What I don't want is to have to play the same siege battle over and over again like I seem to in all the other games.

To be fair, I came in after beating Rome, so I was used to a unit of llate-game units being able to take on a unit or 2 of significantly inferior infantry on paper with relatively light losses.  By comparison, my 3 infantry units that by every measure I was used to in Rome should have been significantly better were devastated by 2 unites of inferior infantry without any sort of advantage I could think of (no ambush, elevation, flanking, etc.). My calvary did minimal damage even when charging into their flanks. 

Probably deserves another chance, but it just fell flat for me from the start (can't remember what infantry units I was using or what they used, but I was under the impression theirs were the equivalent of militia or peasants.

[MerenthaClone]

The thing that has me looking forward to TW;WH is the apparent variety between factions.  In every other TW game, they've been pretty similar factions with some specialities, and they all work (mostly) the same on the strategy layer.  This one looks like they've really differentiated everything.  The Greenskins rely on Atilla's horde mechanic, it seems, and look pretty decent overall on the tactical layer.  The Empire is a normal TW faction and should be pretty vanilla for veterans of the genre, but that's not a bad thing.  The Dwarves look like they'll continuously get semi-random missions that may or may not run very counter to your plans that you need to complete quickly to avoid growing civil unrest and they're a heavy infantry+gunline+artillery faction whose light cavalry analogue will be hard-countered by archers.  Vampire Counts get to raise dead on the strategy layer, spread vampiric corruption and incite revolt, and have no ranged units whatsoever, instead relying on flyers, large monsters, and magic.  Then there's the fact that you simply cannot paint the map in your colors:  some factions cannot occupy certain other types of cities, so that layer will be very different compared to previous TW games just based on that alone.  I expect each race feels very different, and that's going to be a nice change.  

[briantw]

4 hours ago, MerenthaClone said:

There's a reason we haven't gotten it, and its due to the rise of consoles.  UT, Quake, Tribes, etc were both insanely fast-paced games that I don't think could be played on a console at all.  You're flipping around at stupidly fast speeds trying to target similarly fast-moving enemies, often moving in three dimensions, with (typically) very slow-moving projectiles that require a decent amount of leadtime.  It'd be insane with thumbsticks: this is the same limitation that lead to the rise of cover-based shooters because moving and shooting at the same time was too punishingly hard for most people.   Titanfall tried in some ways, but even then it was very, very slow compared to Tribes/Quake/UT.

If you want arena shooters, you're going to have to look at at PC-only titles, I'm afraid, and they're not going to have too much of an audience.  

I mean, I get why it hasn't happened.  It just sucks.  And I do think there's an audience for it.  Plenty of games find more than enough success on the PC to justify their existence, even dozens of F2P titles.

I'll probably just stick with Team Fortress 2, though.  It's not an arena shooter, but it's certainly my favorite online game.

[Jasta11]

If you like arena shooters, you could try a free to play title called Loadout. It's very tongue-in-cheek and features a very extensive weapon customization system. It does block your progression since, well, free to play, but the model is fairer than most.

[Werthead]

Nu-Doom has a pretty cool shout-out to fans of the original games.

New XCOM 2 mods, including one that lets you have a squad size of 12.

RIP Lionhead Studios! They shut down today. The Movies and the first Fable were pretty good games. Black and White was bonkers and crazy, but also very unique. A shame they didn't replicate the glory days of Bullfrog though.

Offworld Trading Company came out today. Sounds interesting. I'll probably never get round to it.

[Jace, Extat]

After the abominations that were Fable II/III, I'm not sad.

[Jack Bauer 24]

Wasn't Fable groundbreaking at the time?

[Jace, Extat]

10 minutes ago, Jack Bauer 24 said:

Wasn't Fable groundbreaking at the time?

I don't know about 'groundbreaking', but it was pretty fucking good. Shame the follow-ups were turds.

[briantw]

20 minutes ago, Jack Bauer 24 said:

Wasn't Fable groundbreaking at the time?

Fable made a lot of claims before it came out that it would be totally groundbreaking.  The game we actually got was a pretty pedestrian action RPG, though.

1 hour ago, Jasta11 said:

If you like arena shooters, you could try a free to play title called Loadout. It's very tongue-in-cheek and features a very extensive weapon customization system. It does block your progression since, well, free to play, but the model is fairer than most.

I'll take a look.  Can't hurt.  It's free.

Team Fortress 2 will probably always be my jam, though.  Used to play it competitively when I was in college and had a bit more free time.  Still have a pretty large group of online friends who play it casually as a result of that.  I have a feeling that game will keep kicking for a long time, too.  It makes Valve a ton of money for minimal work and I believe it still sees an average of 50,000 players a day, which is pretty impressive for a game that's going on ten years old.  Also impressive that they still update it semi-regularly, even if it's the community doing most of the actual work at this point and Valve just making it official.

[Jasta11]

41 minutes ago, Jack Bauer 24 said:

Wasn't Fable groundbreaking at the time?

 

Molyneux made a lot of promises. While I loved Fable back when I first played it, I was 16. I've played tons and tons of RPGs since then that were superior to it in every respect. Most of the "groundbreaking innovations" were meaningless fluff, such as your character aging when literally no one else did, so you went from 18 to 60 and Whisper, who's supposed to be about your age, was still a young woman. You could easily look older than your mom, for pete's sake.

It was also ridiculously easy. So much so that you needed to forgo half the upgrades to not faceroll everything in your path effortlessly. I heard the second and third game were even easier, but I never played them.

And since Molyneux has done nothing but make more grandstanding promises since then, and always failed to live up to them, I'm not sad to see Lionhead go. Not for his sake at least. Fable, to me, is the definition of mediocre RPGs.

[Jack Bauer 24]

Anyone play the new Ratchet and Clank or going to see the movie?

[l2 0 5 5]

2 hours ago, Jasta11 said:

 

Molyneux made a lot of promises. While I loved Fable back when I first played it, I was 16. I've played tons and tons of RPGs since then that were superior to it in every respect. Most of the "groundbreaking innovations" were meaningless fluff, such as your character aging when literally no one else did, so you went from 18 to 60 and Whisper, who's supposed to be about your age, was still a young woman. You could easily look older than your mom, for pete's sake.

It was also ridiculously easy. So much so that you needed to forgo half the upgrades to not faceroll everything in your path effortlessly. I heard the second and third game were even easier, but I never played them.

And since Molyneux has done nothing but make more grandstanding promises since then, and always failed to live up to them, I'm not sad to see Lionhead go. Not for his sake at least. Fable, to me, is the definition of mediocre RPGs.

The final boss on Fable 2 was the easiest boss fight ever. You literally pressed the button to shoot your gun and that was it. Over. End of game. /spoiler

[Jasta11]

25 minutes ago, l2 0 5 5 said:

The final boss on Fable 2 was the easiest boss fight ever. You literally pressed the button to shoot your gun and that was it. Over. End of game. /spoiler

Yeah, I heard that. I also heard that if you don't do it, one of your allies does it for you.

Groundbreaking design, innit.

[KiDisaster]

Fable 1 is one of my favorite games of all time. Groundbreaking or not it was pretty amazing to me at the time, having been a bit too young for the golden generation of CRPGs and only having consoles to game on as a kid. I'm pretty sure it was the first game I played where you had "meaningful" choices to make and could be good or evil. That alone was impressive to 14 year old me. 

I enjoyed the second one also, and it remains the only game I ever unlocked all 40 achievements on. Back when only Xbox had achievements and every game was required to have exactly 40 of them  

3 was a pile of shit though. 

[MerenthaClone]

4 hours ago, Werthead said:

Nu-Doom has a pretty cool shout-out to fans of the original games.

Something similar was one of the best parts of the latest Wolfenstein games (ps, yes, they were awesome) so I'm glad they're doing the same thing.  

[Caligula_K3]

I finished Dark Souls! At last I can be one of those people who says things like "actually, Dark Souls isn't hard, git gud, obviously to beat that boss you should get the sacred ring of Aramarias which is on the opposite end of the map, duh." But hopefully that will never happen.

I loved the final boss. Gwyn was Dark Souls at its best; atmospheric, hard but not insanely hard or tedious, really making you feel the futility of all that you've done in this depressing world. That's partially due to the fantastic music choice; nothing bombastic or triumphant or brassy, just sad piano as you put an insane god out of his misery. Wonderful. Though of course, I actually have no idea what the story was about, which I assume is kind of the point.

Very good game, overall. At times, it really tested my patience, and I would love the game a lot more if more bonfires were placed next to bosses, and if some areas (Tomb of the Giants, Crystal Cave) were removed. I also think it's a bit too long for a very intense Metroidvania. But most of the times, Dark Souls does what it does very well, and I finally get the hype. I played an hour and a half of the NG+ and I also have to admit that there's something so satisfying about being able to ring both bells in that time when on my first playthrough that took me something like twenty hours (though of course, I have amazing weapons now). I think I'll need a bit of a break from the series, but I imagine I'll come back to one of the sequels very soon.

Speaking of which, now that everyone's had a chance to play it more: Dark Souls 2 or 3 for when I return to the series? Bloodborne looks very cool, but the only way I'll get to play it is if I can borrow someone's PS4.

[KiDisaster]

7 minutes ago, Caligula_K3 said:

I finished Dark Souls! At last I can be one of those people who says things like "actually, Dark Souls isn't hard, git gud, obviously to beat that boss you should get the sacred ring of Aramarias which is on the opposite end of the map, duh." But hopefully that will never happen.

I loved the final boss. Gwyn was Dark Souls at its best; atmospheric, hard but not insanely hard or tedious, really making you feel the futility of all that you've done in this depressing world. That's partially due to the fantastic music choice; nothing bombastic or triumphant or brassy, just sad piano as you put an insane god out of his misery. Wonderful. Though of course, I actually have no idea what the story was about, which I assume is kind of the point.

Very good game, overall. At times, it really tested my patience, and I would love the game a lot more if more bonfires were placed next to bosses, and if some areas (Tomb of the Giants, Crystal Cave) were removed. I also think it's a bit too long for a very intense Metroidvania. But most of the times, Dark Souls does what it does very well, and I finally get the hype. I played an hour and a half of the NG+ and I also have to admit that there's something so satisfying about being able to ring both bells in that time when on my first playthrough that took me something like twenty hours (though of course, I have amazing weapons now). I think I'll need a bit of a break from the series, but I imagine I'll come back to one of the sequels very soon.

Speaking of which, now that everyone's had a chance to play it more: Dark Souls 2 or 3 for when I return to the series? Bloodborne looks very cool, but the only way I'll get to play it is if I can borrow someone's PS4.

I would go straight to 3 if you're going to play another one. Two is fun but it doesn't recapture the same feeling that DS1 had. At least not for me. DS3 did, in spades. 

Also if you're interested in learning about the story check out EpicNameBro or VaatiVidya's lore videos on YouTube. They do a great job interpreting it and breaking it down. 

[Corvinus85]

Started XCOM2 and getting my ass kicked. In a mission to retrieve a VIP, I lost the entire squad, but got the VIP. This was followed by a highly successful mission to save civilians, which was then followed by another disastrous mission where I could not protect a transmitter, losing 3 squad members in the process. At this rate, none of my soldiers will advance past "squaddie"  Other than playing with the Ironman mode, the difficulty level is only at "veteran". Fun game, but so challenging. And it's not the timer thing that others have complained about. I'm okay with that. It's all the other crap that the game throws at you. From the start, I feel like I'm fighting a losing battle.