Video Games: Thread Simulator 2016

[Jace, Extat]

So I tried to give Skrym another try, and the game really just looks like puke. I don't know how to take screenshots, but standing in front of the headsmens block all the characters looked crudely copied and pasted into the hideous scenery.

[Werthead]

I'm not sure if you can even do it now, but the original version of the game with the high-res texture pack installed is the way to go. There's then graphics mods which radically improve things even further. You get a far better-looking game than the remaster and one that plays better.

[Jace, Extat]

The game I was playing earlier this year was basically unrecognizable from the one I bought in 2011, but I was not prepared for how horrible that
'remastered' crap looked.

[Durckad]

I saw the re-release of Skyrim on my Steam feed last week and was kinda curious about it. For someone who is too lazy to read the interwebs about it (ie: me), what is the primary reasoning for this rerelease? Like, if it looks worse than the original, modded version what is the point of this other than to milk a few additional dollars out of the gaming community?

[Werthead]

39 minutes ago, Durckad said:

I saw the re-release of Skyrim on my Steam feed last week and was kinda curious about it. For someone who is too lazy to read the interwebs about it (ie: me), what is the primary reasoning for this rerelease? Like, if it looks worse than the original, modded version what is the point of this other than to milk a few additional dollars out of the gaming community?

For people who want to play it on X-Box One and PlayStation 4 (it was previously only available on XB360 and PS3). That's really about it.

[Durckad]

Oh, I figured that was the case. Was hoping that there were maybe some significant fixes or changes or something to warrant the promotion. Oh well, I can live this minor feeling of disappointment I guess.

[The Anti-Targ]

On 29/10/2016 at 1:42 AM, Muttering Bill said:

I haven't played UC4 yet (waiting for a good sale).  I played through UC3 for the first time a few months ago.  It was good, but yeah, not quite as good.  Although the internet tells me that it was rushed to release, so with a little more time to polish it...  who knows.

If you compare it with TR...  I'd say that UC has the better stories, and TR has better gameplay.  (And following that line, The Last of Us has the best story and the worst gameplay of the three.)  TR's story was pretty basic, and from where I am in RotTR it's a bit worse in that respect.  If you're in it for the story, then RottR probably won't satisfy.  Maybe wait for a price drop.

But I'm here for the gameplay, so for me TR had a much stronger start than UC.  And far as that goes, unless they throw in some surprise later in the game, it's pretty much unchanged.  One thing that kind of bugs me though is that you can't hip-fire.  I don't recall if it was like that in the first one.  Had more than a few bad moments trying to shoot at enemies in close range.

I think with age story and characters have become more important to me in these story-based semi-linear games. I like the development of video games as a [becoming more] sophisticated story-telling medium. In story heavy games, the gameplay should support the story. The story and characters should be unashamedly the main event and as long as gameplay isn't distractingly bad (like elements of The Order: 1886) then it has done its job. I like a big tent in video games, so a game like RotTR that is lighter on story and stronger on gameplay is welcome. I think video games become mature as an artform when the full spectrum of all the various elements that make up a video game are used in different ways.

If I want a gameplay experience I'll go for a game with zero story, like Rocket League or Smite, or a Souls game where the intricacies of gameplay are as artful as the story in a story-based game.

[Werthead]

Quote

I like the development of video games as a [becoming more] sophisticated story-telling medium

Is that really happening?

There was an interesting side-debate in a Guardian article a few months ago about how, if this is the golden age of TV, can we also call this the golden age of gaming. And the overwhelming consensus was no. Far fewer games are being made, which reduces the potential for classics to come out, and it feels like the market - particularly the AAA end - is moving towards very formulaic games based on a proven format. As game budgets shoot up, people are less willing to take risks.

Sometimes you do get a classic game/story experience like The Last of Us (or so I'm reliably told, I haven't played it) but the capacity for that is a pale shadow of what it was at the turn of the century.

In fact, if I had to identify the true golden age of gaming, it'd probably be from around 1998 to circa 2004. Which isn't to say some really good games have come out since then, but certainly not the absolutely vast number of classics that came out in that period, including arguably the still-best-ever games in several respective series (including Zelda and Grand Theft Auto), the most defining FPS (that period is neatly bookended by the two Half-Life games, but we also had the first Halo in there, Quake III, the first couple of Call of Duty games, Medal of Honour: Allied Assault and the last two games in the Jedi Knight series, plus the original Far Cry), arguably the best RTS (StarCraft, Ground Control, Hostile Waters and Dawn of War came out in that period) and easily the best RPGs of all time (including Fallout 2, Planescape: Torment, both Baldur's Gates, both Knights of the Old Republics and Morrowind). You also have the birth of the MMORPG genre, with EverQuest, EVE Online and World of WarCraft.

I'd be tempted to roll it back to maybe 1997, to get Fallout and Final Fantasy VII, and maybe extend it to 2006 to also pick up Medieval II: Total War (which I would rank as still the best in the series) and Company of Heroes (the best RTS since the original StarCraft), but that's certainly the ballpark for that "golden age" I would nominate.

[Jasta11]

11 hours ago, Fez said:

And because I've been searching for a lengthy, story-based RPG for ages now, and because it was on sale, I broke down and picked up The Witcher 3. As I've said before, I didn't want to get it because I couldn't stand Geralt in the previous games; so all the world building and writing and everything else has always been wasted on me. I'm only a few hours in (I've done a few side quests and just went to the Nilfgaardian outpost and was told to hunt a griffin), but so far I'm not having that seriously negative reaction to Geralt. I'm not feeling particularly positive towards him either; but I'm not outright hating him the way I did in TW2. I think the writing for him has changed in some way, but I can't quite put my finger on it yet; also, maybe its my imagination, but I think the voice actor is being the tiniest bit less gravelly. Combat doesn't feel very good, and menu navigation is harder than it should be. The non-Geralt writing has been really solid so far. Gwent is great.

They humanize Geralt a lot in TW3, I find. Beforehand, he was kinda just the usual video game protagonist along for the ride, looking tough, being tough, and delivering cool lines as is suitable for his sort. Now, they give him a more personal story, and some pretty emotional moments involve him later in the game. Also helps that they make him the butt of the joke a few times; seeing the big badass Witcher have to play hide and seek with kids in his deadpan voice is pretty funny.

Agreed on the combat and inventory. These were among the annoyances that made me not like TW3 as much as many other people.

[Inigima]

Shame they picked this week for the release, but Titanfall 2 is out and it is pretty good so far.

[Jace, Extat]

2 minutes ago, Inigima said:

Shame they picked this week for the release, but Titanfall 2 is out and it is pretty good so far.

I agree. What's the shame though?

[KiDisaster]

18 minutes ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

I agree. What's the shame though?

Coming out right after Battlefield 1 and right before the new CoD can't be good for its health I would think. 

[Jace, Extat]

1 minute ago, KiDisaster said:

Coming out right after Battlefield 1 and right before the new CoD can't be good for its health I would think. 

Fair point. Probably doesn't help that CoD completely stole the gameplay a few years back.

[Kalbear]

While there are fewer AAA games coming out and most are pretty bland, this is by far the best pc gaming time ever. It's easier than ever to make indy games that do well, that get word of mouth and can actually be bought. 15 years ago That Dragon, Cancer could not be imagined much less made. 

Gaming is far more broad than ever. And just like movies the blockbusters dominate ads and whatnot, but unlike movies small ones can not only do okay, they can thrive.

In addition to that, game playing is normal. The majority of people play some kind of game. That is a huge difference from 2000.

[Kalbear]

Here's an example of how things are so good - even the marquee games are great. Dxmd and dishonored 2 are the kind of games that used to be just critically acclaimed also-rans, and instead they are huge powerhouses and massive hits. Both feature massive nonlinear play, lots of story choice and consequence, and both promote player interacting. The idea that the awesome but not hugely popular deus ex would spawn two separate awesome franchises is incredible by itself.

[Jace, Extat]

4 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

In addition to that, game playing is normal. The majority of people play some kind of game. That is a huge difference from 2000.

I'll testify to that from my perspective. Back then if I told someone I played games they assumed it was Sims or... yeah, pretty much Sims. Someone asked me if I played Roller Coaster Tycoon once and I thought it was really weird, but I can't remember what year that was (never played the game). Anyways, yeah. I don't really do much of the internet like Reddit and whatever, and I don't do online chatting, but in real life no one thinks twice when I talk about the games I'm playing or looking forward to anymore.

[The Anti-Targ]

2 hours ago, Werthead said:

Is that really happening?

 

As a real story-telling medium I think video games are still in the early days. When you really look closely at the story and drama in the best video games in that regard they are still pretty light weight as a story-telling artform. I would absolutely hate the idea that video games have peaked in any respect just 30 or so years after they really got going, and just a decade or two since they became fairly mainstream.

When you consider that a video game is telling a story over a minimum of 6 hours of gameplay and cuscene, (shorter for some FPS campaigns where the popularity is more around the multiplayer), there is a lot of scope for telling some pretty great stories. And then you have your 50-100 hour RPGs with many hours of dialogue that all tolled would probably exceed the number of hours of story in the GoT TV series, the substance of these games is modest. Great stories, characters and drama "for a video game". But what I'm looking for is story content that doesn't come with this qualifier.

Given its interactivity video games should actually be the greatest of all story-telling mediums. We're a looooong way from that being the case. I think in the last 10 years we've had multiplayer, and pretty visuals becoming dominant factors, neither of which actually do much, necessarily for either gameplay or story or variety. But we've also seen a huge explosion in the indie scene which has brought us some genuinely brilliant games, and a lot of stinkers.

If people think we've already seen the best there will be from video games, aside from better graphics, then I am very sad for this medium.

[Kalbear]

I think games are bad storytelling mediums because of their interactivity, and selling them as that limits their scope astoundingly. There are plenty of good story games - but there are plenty of puzzle games that are amazing, and games like dishonored which are both and neither, and games like overwatch which are really nothing like it, and civ which has no story to speak of.

[karaddin]

Yeah, I think there are enough people experimenting with the power of games as a narrative vehicle for your original comment to be justified AT. It's not that they all are doing it, its that people are making games which test what you can do with story telling that is unique to gaming rather than simply trying to copy the narrative style of movies/tv. I know this is more particular to me than a general rule, but the emotional engagement that I've had between Mass Effect, Gone Home and Life is Strange is unlike anything I've experienced elsewhere.  Gone Home had me in tears for parts of life that I missed out on, Life is Strange had me in tears with the pain and joy of a love that wasn't even my own.  These are early and rudimentary still, and there is so much further to go with it but its powerful.

Titanfall kinda sketched out the boundaries of an interesting world without exploring it at all for that matter, and Overwatch is probably the richest game setting that has almost no utilisation of it in the game. I'm curious whether Titanfall 2 made good on that, and I'm positive Blizzard will in the future with Overwatch.

I haven't touched on That Dragon, Cancer because I'm positive that game would destroy me so I haven't gone near it. I've heard excellent things about the way TW3 subverts standard game tropes by making you a witness to the classical hero rather than Geralt himself being in that role. 

The power of what games can do is that by playing the game you cast yourself into the role of the character in a different way to any other media. I do that to a certain extent with books, but because I have no control over what happens there is nothing of myself that remains - I'm purely reading as the character that is a construct of the author. In a game though? I take that character, and I fuse it with myself and with my interpretation of that character and I get a character and experience that is uniquely mine that I'm experiencing from within the game. I fell in love with Chloe in Life is Strange, but I did it as Max!Me - it wasn't crushing on a character because I was lonely or anything like that (I've been there before as well).

I'm excited for where they go from here.

[karaddin]

12 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I think games are bad storytelling mediums because of their interactivity, and selling them as that limits their scope astoundingly. There are plenty of good story games - but there are plenty of puzzle games that are amazing, and games like dishonored which are both and neither, and games like overwatch which are really nothing like it, and civ which has no story to speak of.

Double posting to break out this response to Kal. I think games can be terrible or they can be fantastic. Previous Civ games have only had the most meta elements for sure (Gandhi loves nukes for example), but in Beyond Earth they actually introduced some incredibly subtle elements that revealed themselves over the course of many games. It wasn't what I'd call strong story telling, but it was something interesting within the medium that I hadn't seen elsewhere and it seems like only a handful of people even played it enough to see it and appreciate it.

Games also definitely don't have to have a narrative. My argument is simply that there is unique potential there when they choose to.