Video Games: France not a WWI Nation

[Lyanna Stark]

On 12/07/2016 at 8:17 PM, Fez said:

On the other hand, the female/female relationship options in DA:I are really lacking; especially compared to when I did do a male playthrough and romanced Cassandra. Although none of the DA games have been that good at that; or maybe I'm just still obsessed with Liara.

I thought the Isabela one was pretty good actually. It was supposedly gender neutral, but I just thought it worked.

 

On 12/07/2016 at 8:30 PM, Pony Queen Jace said:

Yeah, DA:I puts forth a noble effort, but my Iron Bull + Cassandra + Dorian party pales in comparison to ridin' dirty with Anders + Varric + Fenris. We fucked the same 10 dudes up in the same 10 rooms for over a decade. Gods, how we lived though!

That said no Dragon Age roster measures up to the likes of Kreia, Atton Rand, HK-47, Mandalore or Carth Onasi, Bastilla Shan, Jolee Bindo, Canderous Ordo and HK-47. And all of them pale in comparison to my one true love Garrus Vakarian.

Ooooh yeah, I ran the Anders, Varric, Fenris party as well. Best is you romance one of them, break up, and romance the other. Ooooh that poisonous party banter!! I never really could go the Fenris romance tho, although Gideon Emery's voice is <3 but I guess my elf-hate is too strong. The only elf who has ever found favour with me is Iorveth and I think it will remain thus.

Hah, I think you and I are alike cos I also romanced Garrus. He got on my tits in ME1, but my word, was he better in ME2 and I totally kept him on for ME3 too. Still prefer Anders if we are ranking our fantasy/scifi/RPG-game boyfriends.  

[MerenthaClone]

57 minutes ago, Lyanna Stark said:

I know, she looks awesome too. Only thing makes me sad is that I, along with a lot of other people, are shite at sniping.   I already suffer from being terribad at shooting stuff so. Perhaps if I am to heal like a Rheinhardt or a Roadhog, but trying to hit a tracer or something? Not in a bazillion years no.

Yeah, but Tracers etc should really not need healing from Mercies either because they should be stealing the enemy's health packs.  Not that it matters, because on the test server Mercy's damage boost now does 50% more instead of 30% so McCree is back to where he was pre-nerf as long as he has a Mercy following him.  Mercy's not going anywhere.  

[Jasta11]

On 12/07/2016 at 4:01 PM, DunderMifflin said:

Don't get me wrong Witcher 3 is an incredibly great game.

I just have a hard time with why the word on the street is that DA:I is vastly inferior. I thought it was a bit better than W3

Think it's partly because TW3 has better first impressions, indeed the best part of the game is the major questline in Velen. Whereas the best part of Inquisition is the midpoint (In Your Heart Shall Burn and Here Lies the Abyss, IMO) and the Trespasser DLC. The majority of players don't even finish games, and the vast majority (70%+, if memory serves) of people who play giant, 100 hour long RPGs don't finish them either. First impressions are thus key.

There's also a plethora of other factors; people prefering TW3's combat or characters, prefering a setting that's more dark and gritty at first glance (but really isn't once you delve into it, if you ask me), putting a bigger emphasis on side-quests which TW did do better, so on and so forth.

And of course, the simple fact that Bioware, and especially EA, get so much flak from gamers while CDPR are seen as generous darlings who descend from the heavens to give us God's very own gifts to humanity in the form of their vidya games.

[briantw]

21 minutes ago, Jasta11 said:

And of course, the simple fact that Bioware, and especially EA, get so much flak from gamers while CDPR are seen as generous darlings who descend from the heavens to give us God's very own gifts to humanity in the form of their vidya games.

I mean, I think the way both companies are viewed is totally fair.  BioWare hasn't been the same since EA bought them.  The Mass Effect 3 ending fiasco really hurt them, and their petty response to it (blaming the fans, basically) didn't help.  EA themselves give gamers a dozen reasons annually, and the way they buy once-great studios and slowly destroy them certainly doesn't help their public opinion.

CDPR, on the other hand, regularly give content away for free, don't overcharge for anything, created GOG so that gamers could experience great older games on modern systems, constantly update and patch their games, and just generally interact positively with their fan base at all times.  Their reputation is wholly earned.  They've basically made it to the Valve-tier of developer good will, although unlike Valve they still make games.

[Jace, Extat]

Holy shit... when was the last valve game? Was it Portal 2?

[briantw]

5 minutes ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

Holy shit... when was the last valve game? Was it Portal 2?

Unless you count Dota, yeah I think so.

[DunderMifflin]

Mass Effect 3 was another one I didn't get all the fury about.

I remember being really depressed about the ending but it didn't change my opinion that ME is the greatest game franchise of all time.

 

[briantw]

3 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

Mass Effect 3 was another one I didn't get all the fury about.

I remember being really depressed about the ending but it didn't change my opinion that ME is the greatest game franchise of all time.

The ending is generally one of the things people remember most about any story, so when the ending sucks that can hurt the whole experience.  Like, I have little to no desire to replay the Mass Effect series because I know the ending is hot garbage and is going to be hot garbage every time I play it.  Just hard for me to muster up any desire to replay it knowing that.

[DunderMifflin]

I forgave it. I thought it was pretty ballsy to not have the riding off into the sunset ending. The result ended badly but I respected the courage.

[Jasta11]

1 hour ago, briantw said:

I mean, I think the way both companies are viewed is totally fair.  BioWare hasn't been the same since EA bought them.  The Mass Effect 3 ending fiasco really hurt them, and their petty response to it (blaming the fans, basically) didn't help.  EA themselves give gamers a dozen reasons annually, and the way they buy once-great studios and slowly destroy them certainly doesn't help their public opinion.

CDPR, on the other hand, regularly give content away for free, don't overcharge for anything, created GOG so that gamers could experience great older games on modern systems, constantly update and patch their games, and just generally interact positively with their fan base at all times.  Their reputation is wholly earned.  They've basically made it to the Valve-tier of developer good will, although unlike Valve they still make games.

Bioware also give free DLC with their games and patch 'em up, as do many developpers I buy games from. But when other devs do it, the process is seen as natural; when CDPR do it, they tout it on every rooftop like they are unique slowflakes, and it seems their fanbase swallows it hook, line and sinker. Obsidian gave just as much (if not more) free content for Pillars of Eternity as CDPR did, but no one talks about it because their PR machine is much less sophisticated.

I mean, they even had their own fuck-ups prior to TW3 releaing, notably the graphical downgrade, as well as the fact that their modding support really isn't anything spectacular, and that their ''16 free DLCs'' amounted to mostly skins, with a handful of quests and NG+ thrown in as the only meaty ones. Just the graphics downgrade was enough to give Watch Dogs a bad name, but TW3 basically was left unscathed.

I'm not saying they're bad developpers, by any means. They're definitely ahead of the curve when it comes to things like DLC value. But I feel their shining and downright perfect reputation is, indeed, not that well deserved. They're not my friends, they're a business, a business that follows many of the same lines as the industry does when it suits them, but it's often swept under the rug and buried under the hype.

Mind you, I also have a similar opinion of Valve. Sure, I love Steam, and they don't make bad games at all, but at the same time their job at actually curating Steam has been abysmal, letting tons and tons of crappy shovelware run rampant. When was the last time they also released a game that wasn't an updated mod anyway? TF2 and HL2, pretty much 10 years ago? 

I just don't believe in inconditionally loving a game developper. No one's perfect, and I prefer to maintain some distance and not get caught up in creator worship.

[briantw]

1 hour ago, Jasta11 said:

Bioware also give free DLC with their games and patch 'em up, as do many developpers I buy games from. But when other devs do it, the process is seen as natural; when CDPR do it, they tout it on every rooftop like they are unique slowflakes, and it seems their fanbase swallows it hook, line and sinker. Obsidian gave just as much (if not more) free content for Pillars of Eternity as CDPR did, but no one talks about it because their PR machine is much less sophisticated.

I wouldn't say they touted it from the rooftops.  Various websites did, but only because free DLC is becoming an increasing rarity in the world of gaming.  It was basically a marketing stunt, to be sure, but sixteen pieces of free DLC are sixteen pieces of free DLC.  Given the various quests, a couple of which were pretty good, you got about five hours of new content for nothing.  Plus, it's not as if Witcher 3 was lacking for content to begin with.  The game had well over a hundred hours of content.  I finished it at about the 102 hour mark (not including the expansions), and I by no means did everything.  I left a lot of question marks in Skellige and a handful in Velen.

I'm not sure what BioWare has given for free of late, as I sold my PS4 and Inquisition along with it, but for Mass Effect 3 the only thing I remember was the extended ending, and that was only made free in light of the response to the atrocity that was the original ending.

As far as Obsidian goes, they're a pretty beloved developer themselves, although they have a well-earned reputation for releasing games that are buggy as fuck.

1 hour ago, Jasta11 said:

I mean, they even had their own fuck-ups prior to TW3 releaing, notably the graphical downgrade, as well as the fact that their modding support really isn't anything spectacular, and that their ''16 free DLCs'' amounted to mostly skins, with a handful of quests and NG+ thrown in as the only meaty ones. Just the graphics downgrade was enough to give Watch Dogs a bad name, but TW3 basically was left unscathed.

I never understood the graphics controversy.  Didn't really care when it happened with Watch Dogs either.  I think the end quality of the game dictates fan response to something like that.  Watch Dogs was mediocre as all hell, and so the graphics issue became a big deal.  The Witcher 3 was an instant game of the year contender, on the other hand, and so it was a lot easier to overlook that the visuals weren't as good as in the E3 footage.

1 hour ago, Jasta11 said:

I'm not saying they're bad developpers, by any means. They're definitely ahead of the curve when it comes to things like DLC value. But I feel their shining and downright perfect reputation is, indeed, not that well deserved. They're not my friends, they're a business, a business that follows many of the same lines as the industry does when it suits them, but it's often swept under the rug and buried under the hype.

I don't know.  CDPR seems quite a bit different than much of the industry.  They're very anti-DRM, and in fact sell games without it on their GOG.com storefront.  They've done a ton of work with GOG updating old games to run on modern systems, which has earned them further good will.  Are they perfect?  No, of course not.  They've only made three full games to this point.  However, their games are generally high quality, they constantly patch them and make changes based on fan demand (Witcher 3's in-game menus, for example, have been upgraded substantially since the game released), and they always offer a good bang for your buck.  Very few developers can offer all of that.

1 hour ago, Jasta11 said:

Mind you, I also have a similar opinion of Valve. Sure, I love Steam, and they don't make bad games at all, but at the same time their job at actually curating Steam has been abysmal, letting tons and tons of crappy shovelware run rampant. When was the last time they also released a game that wasn't an updated mod anyway? TF2 and HL2, pretty much 10 years ago? 

I just don't believe in inconditionally loving a game developper. No one's perfect, and I prefer to maintain some distance and not get caught up in creator worship.

Valve's last game was Portal 2, I believe.  Dota 2 is more recent, but Portal 2 was their last single-player game.  And it was an absolutely fantastic game, by the way.  One of the best story-based games I've ever played.  The writing and voice acting are absolutely top notch, and the gameplay is polished to the typical Valve sheen.  

The real problem with Valve is their employee structure.  I've read their leaked handbook, and because anyone is pretty much free to work on whatever they want, consequently nothing ever gets done.  They're also privately owned and rich as fuck, so there's absolutely no pressure to meet deadlines or pump out yearly games.  The main reason they've acquired so much good will, though, is because they never charge for DLC.  They charge for meaningless things like skins and taunts and hats, but new maps and game modes and such are always free.  Team Fortress 2, for example, has gone from six maps and four game modes to well over a hundred maps and over a dozen game modes.  It just released a major free update last week, almost nine years after its original release.  In an age where companies like Activision pump out new multi-player experiences literally every year, that kind of commitment to expanding an experience and never charging for it or shutting down servers is refreshing.

I agree that Steam has a lot of garbage on it, but it's also become a great way for indie game developers to get their game out there and make a ton of money.  I've found dozens of great indie games on Steam over the past few years.  And it's also generally pretty easy to find what you're looking for on Steam.  The cream rises to the top and the crap gets buried.

[Lyanna Stark]

10 hours ago, MerenthaClone said:

Yeah, but Tracers etc should really not need healing from Mercies either because they should be stealing the enemy's health packs.  Not that it matters, because on the test server Mercy's damage boost now does 50% more instead of 30% so McCree is back to where he was pre-nerf as long as he has a Mercy following him.  Mercy's not going anywhere.  

Holy shit, 50%. 0.o well good I practised some with Mercy last night then. Damn, that is a lot, I'll be stuck on the Valkyrie now 4 evah since my aim is so poor and that buff so very, very sweet.

My failing is prolly that I am in a WoW mindset. I heal everyone, including people I prolly should not try to reach. Heal all the things!!

6 hours ago, DunderMifflin said:

I forgave it. I thought it was pretty ballsy to not have the riding off into the sunset ending. The result ended badly but I respected the courage.

I agree. Besides, Eve and Joker were happy getting merged into some biomech/human thingiejiggies.

[briantw]

8 hours ago, DunderMifflin said:

I forgave it. I thought it was pretty ballsy to not have the riding off into the sunset ending. The result ended badly but I respected the courage.

I don't think the issue was that it wasn't a happy ending.  The issue was that the ending sucked.

I'm totally fine with stories not ending happily, as I think most are.  I mean, we're all on a fucking Song of Ice and Fire forum here.  Anyone who loves those books has to be okay with that sort of thing.  However, a shitty bad ending is still a shitty ending the same way a shitty happy ending is too.  Bad is bad regardless of how happy it is.  

There's a vast difference between Shepherd going out in a blaze of glory trying to save the galaxy and Shepherd having a five minute chat with Star Child before choosing one of three colors and then dying for reasons.  One of them is tonally consistent with the series.  The other is fucking stupid.

[DunderMifflin]

29 minutes ago, briantw said:

I don't think the issue was that it wasn't a happy ending.  The issue was that the ending sucked.

I'm totally fine with stories not ending happily, as I think most are.  I mean, we're all on a fucking Song of Ice and Fire forum here.  Anyone who loves those books has to be okay with that sort of thing.  However, a shitty bad ending is still a shitty ending the same way a shitty happy ending is too.  Bad is bad regardless of how happy it is.  

There's a vast difference between Shepherd going out in a blaze of glory trying to save the galaxy and Shepherd having a five minute chat with Star Child before choosing one of three colors and then dying for reasons.  One of them is tonally consistent with the series.  The other is fucking stupid.

Im not claiming the ending wasn't bad.

I'm saying I respected the effort.

They gambled big by not having a happy ending and they lost big. 

Theres a big chunk of fanbase that still today has zero forgiveness for that ending. I have to believe they were well aware of that risk.

I just don't believe for a second that had Shep defeated the baddies and survived, no matter how poorly it was written it would not have received such a furiously negative reaction. That's just my opinion.

But what do I know, I thought Lumberjack Dexter ending was perfect.

[GallowKnight]

Beastmen are coming to Total Warhammer.

[KiDisaster]

Lets be honest, the dumpster fire that was the ending of Mass Effect 3 had nothing to do with courage and everything to do with EA rushing Bioware to get it out for sale. Every part of that game felt rushed. 

5 hours ago, DunderMifflin said:

But what do I know, I thought Lumberjack Dexter ending was perfect.

You just lost all credibility there

But what do I know, I thought the ending of The Sopranos was brilliant and everyone hates that. 

[Fez]

Nope. I'm not getting sucked into another debate about ME3's ending. Not happening.

I did start playing some competitive in Overwatch though, since it seems like most of the serious bugs in it have gotten worked out. I think they still need to work on their initial ranking systems though. I had some bad luck with teams during the 10 placement matches, went 4-6, and ended up getting a 43 ranking. But I jumped up to rank 47 after a single night of playing, which since its not a progression system is not really the way its supposed to work, and the players still don't seem as good as the ones I get in quick play; so I'm still not up to whatever my hidden quick play rank is at.

I like it though. I'm still at a low enough level that most people aren't too toxic, and its nice having something a little more tangible to play for. It also frees up quick play to be completely carefree for me, since I no longer have to worry about my win ratio there as the main goal in the game.

[KiDisaster]

I ended up starting at rank 45 in Overwatch and have been hovering around there consistently. Falling as low as 42 and climbing as high as 47. I feel like I lose way more than I win, and most of the losses are crushing while the wins are all close. I feel like I'm constantly playing against people who should be ranked way higher than me. I'm glad to hear you're not experiencing much toxicity, but I had the opposite experience. Ranked was awful, nothing but cry babies and ragers. I've just gone back to quick play cause I got sick of it. 

---

In other news, stolen from the WoW Reddit, the Cataclysm zones are now as old as the vanilla zones were when Cataclysm updated them. And now I feel old

[Jasta11]

6 hours ago, briantw said:

I don't think the issue was that it wasn't a happy ending.  The issue was that the ending sucked.

I'm totally fine with stories not ending happily, as I think most are.  I mean, we're all on a fucking Song of Ice and Fire forum here.  Anyone who loves those books has to be okay with that sort of thing.  However, a shitty bad ending is still a shitty ending the same way a shitty happy ending is too.  Bad is bad regardless of how happy it is.  

There's a vast difference between Shepherd going out in a blaze of glory trying to save the galaxy and Shepherd having a five minute chat with Star Child before choosing one of three colors and then dying for reasons.  One of them is tonally consistent with the series.  The other is fucking stupid.

Yeah, for me it really had little to do with Shepard dying. That would be completely within the game's tone. Either in a blaze of glory, or expiring from their wounds next to Anderson after dealing with the Illusive Man and activating the Catalyst.

But everything else was bad. The science was absurd even by Mass Effect standards, the thematic shift into organic vs synthetic at the last minute sucked, the lack of variation between endings (especially pre-EC) was ridiculous, the Catalyst's motivations are nonsensical and contradictory with what we see in the actual game, the characters we've known for 3 games fell by the wayside (again, especially pre-EC) and everything just feels rushed. I don't think it was courage, really. They had a bad idea that was also badly executed. It's easily one of the most unsatisfying endings I've ever seen to a story.

I like Bioware, despite everything people say about them. But those endings we terrible. I simply hope they learn their lesson in Andromeda.

[Corvinus85]

I think courage would be if Bioware addressed the end of ME3 by picking a version and continuing the story in the Milky Way. Don't get me wrong, I like the Andromeda setting, but I would like to have as part of its ending a message received from the Milky Way that the war is over. So the sequel to Andromeda would address what has been happening in the Milky Way since the end of the war.