What games are you playing/looking forward to?

[Inigima]

[quote name='Triskele' post='1745117' date='Apr 4 2009, 21.15']I followed Ini's advice and picked up Prince of Persia: Sands of Time for $5 used. I'm mostly enjoying it so far but I find the fighting a little frustrating. It didn't come with the manual so I may be missing something but it seems like way too much hack and slash hit the A button stuff. Anyone have any suggestions?[/quote]
Jumping over and hitting on the way down is easy mode for a while, until you start to run into enemies on whom it doesn't work. But by that time you'll have gotten good enough to not need it. Launching off walls is helpful too. The game should walk you through all of these things the first time.

The combat isn't the cool part of it, though. They're what you sit through so you can do the platforming puzzle bits.

[Inigima]

I've been on a Steam kick again and have been playing the following:
[list]
[*]And Yet It Moves
[*]Half-Life 2
[*]Aquaria
[*]Alien Shooter: Vengeance
[*]Gish
[*]Obulis
[*]DarkStar One
[/list]
As you can see, there's been a heavy bent towards indie games, been really into the little gems lately. A few micro-review blurbs:

And Yet It Moves - should probably be about $5 cheaper but pretty neat. Get to the end of each level by running, jumping and rotating the world. Unique albeit unpolished art style, won some indie game award.

Aquaria - I've played this before, it's one of the greatest indie games I've ever played, you all need to play it. You can buy it through the dev's website if you prefer but updating is a pain so I prefer to play through Steam. Yes, I've bought it twice. :( Think of it as the beautiful lovechild of Metroid and Ecco the Dolphin.

Alien Shooter: Vengeance - mindless isometric blasting shit kind of game, not super amazing but hey for $2.50 (all Strategy First games are on 50% off sale until April 13th) it's fun.

Gish - You're a sentient, anthropomorphic blob of tar. You're trying to save a girl or some shit, I don't know. You can move, jump and make yourself sticky, slippery or heavy. Pretty fun. The presentation makes it look like it's based on a comic but I have no idea if that's true.

Obulis - Fun, polished as hell puzzle game, way better done than you'd think. You're trying to get colored marbles into like-colored containers. All you can do is break the chains holding the marbles up. You end up with sometimes very complicated Rube Goldberg type solutions, it owns.

DarkStar One - Arcadey space sim. Story, writing and voice acting are all trash but the gameplay is pretty fun. Another Strategy First game, on sale for $5, which I think makes it worth it.

You all know Half-Life 2 but I bought the PC version and for some reason I like it way more on the PC. It's [i]not[/i] a control issue, I have zero problems playing the 360 version, it's just... more fun and I don't know why.

[Werthead]

Picked up CoD4 going cheap.

Intense action, engaging story, some nice break-ups from the FPS carnage (particularly enjoyed the gunship bit) and so on. At the same time the artificial limitations on where you can go in a mission are a bit warying: "I'll flank down this alley! Wait there's some impregnable and impassable tires here, so I guess I won't." And if you've played previous Infinity Ward games you should be able to play this in your sleep. Also: infinite, regenerating bad guys who constantly appear until you progress: lame.

It's very decent but I'm not quite seeing why people were getting so excited about it. It's better than CoD2 and running about even with CoD1 in quality at the moment.

[Inigima]

[quote name='Werthead' post='1750148' date='Apr 8 2009, 23.20']It's very decent but I'm not quite seeing why people were getting so excited about it. It's better than CoD2 and running about even with CoD1 in quality at the moment.[/quote]
It's the multiplayer. Don't judge it until you've played the MP for at least a couple hours.

edit: I also picked up Mevo and the Grooveriders for shits and giggles. It's pretty fun but there's sound lag on one of my machines that fucks it pretty badly. The devs are aware of it and are working up a QA version with it fixed.

[Rhaco]

I've worked my way to the top in a couple guilds in Oblivion, dabbled in a couple more and I'm guessing I'm about a third of the way through the main quest. It's my first time playing an Elder Scrolls game and I'm liking it quite a bit, though I despise almost everything about the leveling system.

[quote name='Werthead' post='1750148' date='Apr 8 2009, 22.20']It's very decent but I'm not quite seeing why people were getting so excited about it.[/quote]
Like Inigima said, it's the multiplayer.

[Muttering Bill]

[quote name='Inigima' post='1749926' date='Apr 8 2009, 17.55']Aquaria - I've played this before, it's one of the greatest indie games I've ever played, you all need to play it... Think of it as the beautiful lovechild of Metroid and Ecco the Dolphin.[/quote]
Sounds great - Ecco is one of my all-time favorites. Too bad though, as I don't do PC gaming. :dunno: But if it ever comes to XBLA I'll be all over it.

[quote name='Rhaco' post='1750203' date='Apr 9 2009, 01.40']I've worked my way to the top in a couple guilds in Oblivion, dabbled in a couple more and I'm guessing I'm about a third of the way through the main quest. It's my first time playing an Elder Scrolls game and I'm liking it quite a bit, though I despise almost everything about the leveling system.[/quote]
I've had so much trouble getting into this game. I think I'd have liked it more if I hadn't tried it after [i]Fallout 3[/i]. I can't figure out the leveling system at all, the controlls are just dissimilar enough to annoy me, the dungeons just don't seems as interesting, there are soooo many missions that I don't know which to do first, the minigame to change people disposition toward you is stupid, and I miss VATS something fierce.

Maybe joining the arena will help get my interest up. When I get back to it. Some day.

At the moment [i]Fable 2[/i] and [i]Guitar Hero: Metallica[/i] are keeping me well occupied.

[Werthead]

[quote]Like Inigima said, it's the multiplayer.[/quote]

Not good enough. Unless the game is multiplayer-only, there's no excuse for subpar work on the SP side of things. It's fun, but not the OMG! revelation a lot of people have made it out to be.

I've played the multiplayer on the PS3 version. It was okay but nothing special.

[Inigima]

[quote name='Muttering Bill' post='1750447' date='Apr 9 2009, 10.26']Sounds great - Ecco is one of my all-time favorites. Too bad though, as I don't do PC gaming. :dunno: But if it ever comes to XBLA I'll be all over it.[/quote]
It's not demanding system-wise as far as I know. You can get the demo at [url="http://www.bit-blot.com/aquaria"]http://www.bit-blot.com/aquaria[/url]

[quote name='Werthead' post='1750478' date='Apr 9 2009, 10.56']Not good enough. Unless the game is multiplayer-only, there's no excuse for subpar work on the SP side of things. It's fun, but not the OMG! revelation a lot of people have made it out to be.[/quote]
Okay well I'm sorry the game doesn't live up to your standards but you asked why we love it and that's why

[Daeric]

I finally got around to picking up Neverwinter Nights 2 and I've just started playing around as a lawful Evil Fighter.

[Rhaco]

[quote name='Muttering Bill' post='1750447' date='Apr 9 2009, 09.26']I can't figure out the leveling system at all...[/quote]
Yeah, it sucks. I don't like that enemies and quest rewards apparently level with you and I absolutely despise the whole attribute bonus/efficient leveling thing. I made the decision early on to try to ignore that and just, ya know, play the game, but every time I level up and don't see the right number of +5's I get irritated all over again.

[quote name='Muttering Bill' post='1750447' date='Apr 9 2009, 09.26']...there are soooo many missions that I don't know which to do first...[/quote]
Just pick a guild and work your way through that, ignoring everything else. That's what I did to get my feet wet. I started with the Arena and Fighter's Guild since they seemed the least complicated -- no messing around with alchemy or magic or thievery, just straight-up sword and shield combat.

[quote name='Muttering Bill' post='1750447' date='Apr 9 2009, 09.26']...the minigame to change people disposition toward you is stupid...[/quote]
Yeah, it is stupid. Or maybe I am, since I have absolutely no idea how it works. I tried it a few times, felt like a monkey being given an intelligence test, and decided it wasn't something I was going to bother with again. If I need to raise someone's disposition, I just bribe them or use a Charm spell or scroll.

[quote name='Werthead' post='1750478' date='Apr 9 2009, 09.56']Not good enough. Unless the game is multiplayer-only, there's no excuse for subpar work on the SP side of things. It's fun, but not the OMG! revelation a lot of people have made it out to be.[/quote]
Subpar work? It's a COD game. If you've played one in SP, you've played them all. If COD4's SP is a revelation to anyone, I'm guessing it's mostly because of the improved graphics and shift to modern warfare. But I really don't think many people are buying and playing COD4 just for the SP.

[quote name='Werthead' post='1750478' date='Apr 9 2009, 09.56']I've played the multiplayer on the PS3 version. It was okay but nothing special.[/quote]
A year and a half or so after it was released, COD4 is still the 3rd most played game on Live, and that's with COD: World at War (basically a reskinned COD4) in the #1 spot drawing on the same pool of players. So it's apparently something special to a few people.

[Werthead]

Finished CoD4. Some real moments of genius turned up along the way, like the Chernobyl mission, but otherwise it was mediocre to decent, at best. The fact that Infinity Ward don't seem to have made a single advance in single player game design since 2003 is a cause for concern though. Some elements of the game design are totally fucking retarded. Standing in a courtyard exchanging fire with the enemy forces it suddenly dawned on me that the game was constantly replenishing the enemy troop's ranks with new forces and our two sides were going to stand there shooting at one another until judgement day until I ran into the hail of gunfire and triggered the next advance point that got the rest of my troops advancing, because obviously none of them were going to do it.

What. The. Fuck? A modern military simulator that discourages the use of ranged combat, teamwork, cover and tactics? This shit was barely acceptable before [i]GRAW[/i] but sure as hell isn't now.

Infinity Ward can still create a chaotic and intense feeling of being in a warzone, but their refusal to introduce proper, realistic tactics into their games is now getting slightly ridiculous.

On the plus side, the designers being huge fans of [i]Aliens[/i] is quite amusing as you get to play 'spot the reference' throughout the game.

[quote name='Rhaco' post='1750625' date='Apr 9 2009, 17.59']Subpar work? It's a COD game. If you've played one in SP, you've played them all. If COD4's SP is a revelation to anyone, I'm guessing it's mostly because of the improved graphics and shift to modern warfare. But I really don't think many people are buying and playing COD4 just for the SP.[/quote]

Unless there's been a new study done since Valve's big one last year, 75%+ of gamers never take their single-player-focused games online. There's probably strong exceptions ([i]Halo 3[/i] will likely be over 50% going online, for example) and CoD4 could be one of them, but this is definitely not a multiplayer-only game.

[quote]A year and a half or so after it was released, COD4 is still the 3rd most played game on Live, and that's with COD: World at War (basically a reskinned COD4) in the #1 spot drawing on the same pool of players. So it's apparently something special to a few people.[/quote]

Multiplayer CoD4 is good, solid fun. My complaint is that the game is, well, just [i]CoD2[/i] with a modern make-over. [i]CoD2 [/i]MP[i] [/i]was also great, solid fun. In 2005. I guess I'm just expecting a little bit more from a game that's two instalments further down the series.

[Inigima]

wert you can think what you want but most of the gaming public disagrees with you

[Bolton Bastard]

Huh, interesting Wert.

However, you skipped past the mechanics, the fluidity of the system, and the storyline to mere mentions of your denouncement of the single player.

You have to understand the target audience = gramers who like the idea of charging into combat without much thought.

The recycling enemies can be annoying, but they were not attempting to make a tactical shooter (which Gears tried with varying success depending on who you ask) but another FPS that is stylized, fairly gritty, and can draw players in.

And that seems to be all the public wants, so in that respect they made quiet a good game. The hype around it really shouldn't be surprising though as it is a well made FPS. The amero/european gaming world seems to currently have an addiction to them so yeah. They're probably going to be rated higher than they should but they are still well made games that have great appeal to their audience.

[Inigima]

Also, good lord, shame on you for holding up GRAW as some kind of positive example of anything.

[Werthead]

[quote]However, you skipped past the mechanics, the fluidity of the system, and the storyline to mere mentions of your denouncement of the single player.[/quote]

* scratches head *

The mechanics are the same mechanics of every other FPS for the last decade in general and are pretty much unchanged from CoD1 and 2 in particular. The storyline is okay but nothing special at all.

It's a well-made, mediocre FPS, nothing more than that. The excitement I'm seeing over this game is very similar to the excitement I saw over CoD1 back in late 2003 and may be a result of the game being a huge hit on consoles with a lot of players who'd never played the earlier games, but personally I would have liked to have seen the game move on a bit in the succeeding five years.

[quote]wert you can think what you want but most of the gaming public disagrees with you[/quote]

:rofl:

Good lord. That was [i]fast[/i]. "I don't agree with you so I could cite reasons why and rebut your points in depth, or point out that the game has sold lots of copies so therefore your opinions are irrelevant."

By that logic [i]The Sims 2[/i] shits on CoD4 from a very great height indeed.

[quote]Also, good lord, shame on you for holding up GRAW as some kind of positive example of anything.[/quote]

It's not executed as well as it could have been, but at least when you die in a hail of gunfire in GRAW, it's because your plan has fucked up and not because of the game's retarded mechanics.

Yeah, GRAW was designed from the ground up to be a 'you plan everything, freeform' combat shooter and CoD4 was designed to be an 'on-rails, zero-freedom, lowest-common-denominator shooter', so I'm giving the game grief for not being something it was never meant to be. Also, the fact I was told non-stop for 18 months this game was The Shit was probably a factor as well.

[Inigima]

[quote name='Werthead' post='1751137' date='Apr 9 2009, 21.31']:rofl:

Good lord. That was [i]fast[/i]. "I don't agree with you so I could cite reasons why and rebut your points in depth, or point out that the game has sold lots of copies so therefore your opinions are irrelevant."[/quote]
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to be so abrasive. But I really think that your expectations of games are sometimes vastly different from those of the general gaming public.

[quote]It's not executed as well as it could have been, but at least when you die in a hail of gunfire in GRAW, it's because your plan has fucked up and not because of the game's retarded mechanics.[/quote]
GRAW is nothing [i]but[/i] retarded mechanics and poor control. :huh: I died a lot in GRAW and never felt it was my fault.

[Bolton Bastard]

I can see where you're coming from with the idea of improvements.

But you clearly haven't played a poorly designed FPS controls. God they can be terrible. But i digress.

There's always a bit of trouble with improving a system they have working for them. Because then you piss off the old fans who really just want the old game with some cool new stuff.

Take Starcraft for example. I am waiting (almost) patiently for Starcraft 2. But I really do expect roughly the same game, and would be annoyed if they tweaked the system too much. Sure the parallels between a FPS and a RTS aren't very many but I think it got my rough point across.

Personally, yeah, I can see where you would want the freeform shooter and I would too. But I don't think it detracts from the game that it does very well what it wants to do. You can blame it for not being ambitious enough in scope or sloppily done. But in the end you're looking for a game that it was not meant to be, you're letting your biases cloud the opinion of the game.

[Durckad]

[quote name='Werthead' post='1751137' date='Apr 9 2009, 20.31']Also, the fact I was told non-stop for 18 months this game was The Shit was probably a factor as well.[/quote]
I can understand that. I've had a lot of things ruined by hype.

But you're still wrong. ;)

[G'Kar]

Werthead, you didn't like Bioshock either, did you? I'm suddenly feeling very smug and elitist. :P

[Werthead]

[quote]There's always a bit of trouble with improving a system they have working for them. Because then you piss off the old fans who really just want the old game with some cool new stuff.[/quote]

Normally I would give this argument a lot more credence, but the whole reason that Infinity Ward split from 2015 is that they didn't want to keep on making [i]Medal of Honour[/i] clone after [i]Medal of Honour[/i] clone and they wanted to do things a bit differently, which they did brilliantly with [i]Call of Duty 1[/i]. It seems to be a bit odd and against their founding ethos that they are just churning the same game out again and again. But I suppose idealism and working with Activision do not go hand-in-hand.

[url="http://waxinghellions.blogspot.com/2008/03/why-infinity-ward-should-spend-their.html"]This is a take[/url] on the game I mainly agree with, although possibly not going quite so overboard on the physics side of things (even though the game's physics engine is rudimentary at best).

I guess I'm just crazy in expecting a series of games to occasionally innovate instead of just slapping a new number after the title and making the graphics a bit better.

[quote]Take Starcraft for example. I am waiting (almost) patiently for Starcraft 2. But I really do expect roughly the same game, and would be annoyed if they tweaked the system too much.[/quote]

I suspect SC2 is going to get a ton of criticism for this as well. One preview put it excellently. If we'd gotten what is now SC2 say five years ago people would have responded to it well. Eleven years on getting the exact same game BUT IN 3D (which doesn't matter because the camera viewpoint will still be the same) might not quite cut it. In fact the only sequel which successfully walked that line of being similar to the original whilst still packing in tons of innovation and originality that comes to mind is Half-Life 2 (maybe BG2, actually). Maybe SC2 will hit that note as well (and oddly I'm getting the vibe Diablo 3 might do that as well).

[quote]Werthead, you didn't like Bioshock either, did you? I'm suddenly feeling very smug and elitist.[/quote]

[i]BioShock[/i] had amazing art direction and some decent action set-pieces. But it was just [i]System Shock 2[/i]-meets-Ayn-Rand-BUT-UNDERWATER.