[Morgoth]

So, having played some more CIV 5, I'm going to lower my criticism some. I do really like the culture system, especially with how much your play is forced to change depending on the policies you chose. It opens for quite some replayability. I also like how each civ has a special power of sorts. Some seem wastly more powerfull than others, but that's hardly a problem in this sort of game.

Still, I think the new tech tree is a little too limited, and the jumps in military tech is not nearly powerfull enough. Not having iron does no longer put you at the mercy of every iron-power on the continent. Which is all kinds of wrong.

Also the AI is retarded when it comes to warfare. Absolutely retarded. It was not as obvious in CIV 4, but with the tile system in CIV 5 the AI is simply a joke.

All the same I'm enjoying myself. It's a pretty game, and the maps feel more... real. Deserts, plains, forests, jungles, they all look and feel more believable.

Victory conditions are strange though. Domination is nigh impossible on anything bigger than medium and cultural victory entirely daft. It also seems much easier to reach the science victory, and I'm having a hard time thinking of a scenario where you -or any AI for that matter- could reach the final techs without having finished the science victory first.

[Mentalist]

in lieu of the Torment Kickstarter, I have endevoured once again to attempt Planescape: Torment. Previous attempts have ended poorly due to lack of time and me dropping the game at some point and never coming back to it.

I have made it out of the Hive this time. However, given that I've spent the entire Wednesday night playing instead of sleeping (and skipped class as the result), I've relegated this to to weekend nights (past 11 PM) only. Got waay too much exam-related crap I should be really worrying about now.

That being said, really kicking myself for not sticking with it all those earlier times.

[Defiance]

Obdigore, on 22 March 2013 - 03:20 AM, said:

Defiance, on 21 March 2013 - 06:42 PM, said:

I really hope that this is just people trying to get publicity/build bad will toward the next Xbox before it's officially announced in April. If this turns out to be true, I'll definitely be sticking with the PS4 (and the Wii U once the next Xeno game comes out).

Actually there are reports that the PS4 will have the same always online and installation required that have been 'reported' for the Xbox Infinity or Xbox Loop, whichever it's going to be.

Do you have an article post-reveal about this? There were all sorts of rumors floating around before Sony's conference, but I thought that these were dismissed in the days following it. I know they've said that you will not have to be connected to online in order to play, and I'm pretty sure I read an article where they said you'll be able to play used games. Not quite sure about the latter, though; I think the article was left kind of vague.

[amphibian]

You could just wait a while and see what the answers are in a couple months or so.

[Traveller]

Has anyone tried the new Tomb Raider yet?

I just read a few reviews, and while they're generally good, the game sounds a bit too much like a mixture of other games I've already played.

For example, Lara gets stranded on a beautiful but hostile island, has to rescue her friends, and learns to survive and hunt down the bad guys using weapons she accumulates as the game progresses. One criticism of the game is that Lara goes from her first 'kill' as a traumatizing experience, to nailing multiple targets through the neck without a blink in almost an instant. Oh, and along the way, there are caves, treasures, maps and a few puzzles to solve. Familiar?

I've got about halfway through 'Far Cry 3', and the description of TR above could be about that, if the name Lara wasn't mentioned. Creeping through the wilderness, shooting people with a bow.. I've sort of been doing that in Far Cry. (I've actually stopped playing it now, as although the map is huge, it just seems to be filled with the same identical outposts, with their own generic comms tower nearby. After clearing a number of these in different ways, using diffferent weapons, it's getting kind of repetitive and dull. Does it change, or improve at all?)

I'm just a bit disappointed as I was looking for something to play once I finish 'Ni No Kuni', and the first thing I looked at has exactly the same story as the last game I played.

What the hell is wrong with the industry at the moment? I had 250k games on my Amiga that had more imagination in them, and actually required some sort of effort to get anywhere. They looked and sounded terrible, but that's not a problem anymore. Plus most of the games I've played recently have had some form of ability that lets you see through walls, highlights the enemies when you can't see them, or just has the good old ''dot on the mini-map' to show you where to go.

Oh, and the 'collectables'....

This post has been edited by Traveller: 22 March 2013 - 10:41 PM

[Avatar]

Quote

I've sort of been doing that in Far Cry. (I've actually stopped playing it now, as although the map is huge, it just seems to be filled with the same identical outposts, with their own generic comms tower nearby. After clearing a number of these in different ways, using diffferent weapons, it's getting kind of repetitive and dull. Does it change, or improve at all?)

To me, those outpost didn't look so generic. Some are bigger than other, some have a cave entrance from the back. I remember one surrounded by huge cliffs, all of these differences provided some new strategic opportunities. Later in the game, you meet more heavies which cannot be outdone (at first) by the silent-kill-from-behind (what was its name?) Reinforcements get heavier (helicopters) and your weapons get better off course. And just changing strategies by yourself can alter your FC3 experience hugely.

This post has been edited by Avatar: 22 March 2013 - 10:33 PM

[Traveller]

Avatar, on 22 March 2013 - 10:33 PM, said:

Quote

I've sort of been doing that in Far Cry. (I've actually stopped playing it now, as although the map is huge, it just seems to be filled with the same identical outposts, with their own generic comms tower nearby. After clearing a number of these in different ways, using diffferent weapons, it's getting kind of repetitive and dull. Does it change, or improve at all?)

To me, those outpost didn't look so generic. Some are bigger than other, some have a cave entrance from the back. I remember one surrounded by huge cliffs, all of these differences provided some new strategic opportunities. Later in the game, you meet more heavies which cannot be outdone (at first) by the silent-kill-from-behind (what was its name?) Reinforcements get heavier (helicopters) and your weapons get better off course. And just changing strategies by yourself can alter your FC3 experience hugely.

So it doesn't really change then. I didn't mean that the outposts are literally identical, but that what you are doing at each one essentially is the same, over and over. Scout it out, find weak spots, kill everybody using weapons of choice. The weapons get bigger to deal with bigger enemies, and there are slight differences in terrain, but the game is still basically a grid with the same objective in each square. And I said I was finding it repetitive, regardless of how you reach the objective... I've done stealth, full on assaults, mines in the roads, lures to high explosives... I think I even figured out a way of driving a car full of C4 at the outpost and rolling out, as the car keeps going. And you do have to admit, after climbing like the 30th tower, using yet another identically-coiled-and-conveniently-positioned bit of rope, that they could have at least tried to make them a bit different?

This post has been edited by Traveller: 22 March 2013 - 10:56 PM

[Silencer]

Traveller, on 22 March 2013 - 10:56 PM, said:

Avatar, on 22 March 2013 - 10:33 PM, said:

Quote

I've sort of been doing that in Far Cry. (I've actually stopped playing it now, as although the map is huge, it just seems to be filled with the same identical outposts, with their own generic comms tower nearby. After clearing a number of these in different ways, using diffferent weapons, it's getting kind of repetitive and dull. Does it change, or improve at all?)

To me, those outpost didn't look so generic. Some are bigger than other, some have a cave entrance from the back. I remember one surrounded by huge cliffs, all of these differences provided some new strategic opportunities. Later in the game, you meet more heavies which cannot be outdone (at first) by the silent-kill-from-behind (what was its name?) Reinforcements get heavier (helicopters) and your weapons get better off course. And just changing strategies by yourself can alter your FC3 experience hugely.

So it doesn't really change then. I didn't mean that the outposts are literally identical, but that what you are doing at each one essentially is the same, over and over. Scout it out, find weak spots, kill everybody using weapons of choice. The weapons get bigger to deal with bigger enemies, and there are slight differences in terrain, but the game is still basically a grid with the same objective in each square. And I said I was finding it repetitive, regardless of how you reach the objective... I've done stealth, full on assaults, mines in the roads, lures to high explosives... I think I even figured out a way of driving a car full of C4 at the outpost and rolling out, as the car keeps going. And you do have to admit, after climbing like the 30th tower, using yet another identically-coiled-and-conveniently-positioned bit of rope, that they could have at least tried to make them a bit different?

Absolutely, there could have been more variation. But as far as open-world FPS games go, Far Cry 3 is awesome. Purely because of the freedom you have to approach outposts, the fact that you can say "fuck the story" (mostly) for the vast majority of your time, and the fact that clearing an outpost perfectly doesn't really get old.

If that stuff is too repetitive for you, it's a shame, but I do wonder how you play any modern FPS without trying to kill yourself from boredom.

[amphibian]

Dark Souls ruined us all for FPS.

[Silencer]

amphibian, on 23 March 2013 - 01:39 AM, said:

Dark Souls ruined us all for FPS.

...the third-person RPG...>.>

Does not compute. XD


(Though you have a point)

[Traveller]

Silencer, on 23 March 2013 - 12:51 AM, said:

Traveller, on 22 March 2013 - 10:56 PM, said:

Avatar, on 22 March 2013 - 10:33 PM, said:

Quote

I've sort of been doing that in Far Cry. (I've actually stopped playing it now, as although the map is huge, it just seems to be filled with the same identical outposts, with their own generic comms tower nearby. After clearing a number of these in different ways, using diffferent weapons, it's getting kind of repetitive and dull. Does it change, or improve at all?)

To me, those outpost didn't look so generic. Some are bigger than other, some have a cave entrance from the back. I remember one surrounded by huge cliffs, all of these differences provided some new strategic opportunities. Later in the game, you meet more heavies which cannot be outdone (at first) by the silent-kill-from-behind (what was its name?) Reinforcements get heavier (helicopters) and your weapons get better off course. And just changing strategies by yourself can alter your FC3 experience hugely.

So it doesn't really change then. I didn't mean that the outposts are literally identical, but that what you are doing at each one essentially is the same, over and over. Scout it out, find weak spots, kill everybody using weapons of choice. The weapons get bigger to deal with bigger enemies, and there are slight differences in terrain, but the game is still basically a grid with the same objective in each square. And I said I was finding it repetitive, regardless of how you reach the objective... I've done stealth, full on assaults, mines in the roads, lures to high explosives... I think I even figured out a way of driving a car full of C4 at the outpost and rolling out, as the car keeps going. And you do have to admit, after climbing like the 30th tower, using yet another identically-coiled-and-conveniently-positioned bit of rope, that they could have at least tried to make them a bit different?

Absolutely, there could have been more variation. But as far as open-world FPS games go, Far Cry 3 is awesome. Purely because of the freedom you have to approach outposts, the fact that you can say "fuck the story" (mostly) for the vast majority of your time, and the fact that clearing an outpost perfectly doesn't really get old.

If that stuff is too repetitive for you, it's a shame, but I do wonder how you play any modern FPS without trying to kill yourself from boredom.

I have enjoyed playing it, and yes, it is satisfying to clear a busy outpost with just the bow and tanto. It's just not dragging me back though?

The story seems at odds with the open world.. I think I would have preferred a scatter of npcs and missions you discover yourself, rather than having a constant reminder of the next mission in the corner while I'm off hunting amd exploring.

And yes, I am getting bored I guess.

Maybe Amps right.. DS's isn't perfect, but I keep going back because the combat is so solid, the world is big and brutal with no loading screens in sight.. and it is dead satisfying when you manage to finally kill something that could take you out in one hit if you slip up just once.

[Silencer]

I agree that the story (and the intrusive way it pops up every time you load a game) is "at odds" with the open world. Frankly, I only completed the story when I was out of things to do or looking for a break from making my own little empire on the island (quite jarring with the narrative, that - what, you think I haven't proven myself yet? LOL Citra...) and I could have done without it, or with a more modular plotline - Vaas was brilliant in his insanity, but that was really the only highlight of the plot.

And I think Dark Souls spoiled us. It was one of those games which said "fuck you" to modern trends in gaming (namely: simplification, console-ification, dumbing down, making "hard" into easy mode, etc), and in doing so it just grabs (many) gamers by the throat and won't let them go. The great sense of accomplishment from the greater risk of death, the feeling of actually having overcome difficult opponents through skill, or indeed luck, which has been missing from so many games lately - especially the FPS genre, dominated by a few, highly recycled types of enemy that break into the same old patterns every game...and hell, not even lately. It's been a trend for at least a decade. :S
But it is those small bits of the formula which FC3 shuns - namely being open world and allowing the gamer to make their own challenges - which makes it stand out. It's not enough to make it as captivating as Dark Souls, but come on, it IS an FPS, not an RPG (no matter the "skill tree" of sorts), so there are limits to what you can expect.

I think what it boils down is this. In Morrowind (here I go again), I would often face opponents who were as strong, if not considerably stronger than myself. Finding rare loot (GENUINELY rare loot) was tough, rewarding, and fraught with risk. In Oblivion, the only time I ever had any difficulty was once; when I faced Umbra at around level 10 with a poorly levelled pseudo-stealth build. It was the most exhilarating piece of content in that game, and nigh impossible to reproduce if one has taken any care with their character's levelling and build, but it was fun. Running out of health potions, having to resort to an incredibly weak bow attack (best weapon got disarmed/broke, iirc, others had the same happen until I ran out of health enough that melee wasn't an option) while trying to heal with the weakest healing spell, practically no magicka to speak of, and hiding on that little ledge where Umbra can't get to you.

I remember that combat in great detail, because it was the ONLY moment from that whole game which got me into it like I felt half the damn time with Morrowind. What does Dark Souls resemble in this sense? Morrowind. What does every other game on the market resemble? Oblivion. It's a horrendous downwards trend in the level of complexity and difficulty in games, sold under the headline of "mass-market appeal", and it sucks. But is unlikely to cease any time soon. We'll be limited to one or two really good titles per year (depending on how many consoles/gaming PC you have access to), and the rest of the stuff will be mass-market cookie-cutter junk. Not that said junk cannot be FUN, it can be, but it is often only so in a limited sense over a limited timeframe - something which I'm sure the producers are counting on, at least the cynical side of me.

There we go, rant complete. And I even managed to make this discussion about why Morrowind is awesome.

[worry]

[Mentalist]

worrywort, on 23 March 2013 - 06:52 PM, said:

Never played this but I've spent DAYS on that Chip and Dale game.... hope they re-make that one, too...

[Illuyankas]

[Traveller]

Silencer, on 23 March 2013 - 01:10 PM, said:

And I think Dark Souls spoiled us. It was one of those games which said "fuck you" to modern trends in gaming (namely: simplification, console-ification, dumbing down, making "hard" into easy mode, etc), and in doing so it just grabs (many) gamers by the throat and won't let them go. The great sense of accomplishment from the greater risk of death, the feeling of actually having overcome difficult opponents through skill, or indeed luck, which has been missing from so many games lately - especially the FPS genre, dominated by a few, highly recycled types of enemy that break into the same old patterns every game...and hell, not even lately. It's been a trend for at least a decade. :S

I think what it boils down is this. In Morrowind (here I go again), I would often face opponents who were as strong, if not considerably stronger than myself. Finding rare loot (GENUINELY rare loot) was tough, rewarding, and fraught with risk. In Oblivion, the only time I ever had any difficulty was once; when I faced Umbra at around level 10 with a poorly levelled pseudo-stealth build. It was the most exhilarating piece of content in that game, and nigh impossible to reproduce if one has taken any care with their character's levelling and build, but it was fun. Running out of health potions, having to resort to an incredibly weak bow attack (best weapon got disarmed/broke, iirc, others had the same happen until I ran out of health enough that melee wasn't an option) while trying to heal with the weakest healing spell, practically no magicka to speak of, and hiding on that little ledge where Umbra can't get to you.
There we go, rant complete. And I even managed to make this discussion about why Morrowind is awesome.

Well, it was kind of inevitable! I agree though, I only played through Morrowind once, but from what i remember, if you dared to enter a dungeon that was full of high-end creatures, and managed to get to the loot at the end, it really was a genuine reward, as the enemies didn't scale according to your current level, and neither did the loot. So if you were bold or sneaky enough, you could get powerful rewards at quite a low level.

Whereas in Oblivion, the dungeon would be the same difficulty relative to your level, and the loot would also correspond - making early exploration and risks pointless in a way.

This post has been edited by Traveller: 23 March 2013 - 09:46 PM

[Mentalist]

Traveller, on 23 March 2013 - 09:31 PM, said:

Silencer, on 23 March 2013 - 01:10 PM, said:

And I think Dark Souls spoiled us. It was one of those games which said "fuck you" to modern trends in gaming (namely: simplification, console-ification, dumbing down, making "hard" into easy mode, etc), and in doing so it just grabs (many) gamers by the throat and won't let them go. The great sense of accomplishment from the greater risk of death, the feeling of actually having overcome difficult opponents through skill, or indeed luck, which has been missing from so many games lately - especially the FPS genre, dominated by a few, highly recycled types of enemy that break into the same old patterns every game...and hell, not even lately. It's been a trend for at least a decade. :S

I think what it boils down is this. In Morrowind (here I go again), I would often face opponents who were as strong, if not considerably stronger than myself. Finding rare loot (GENUINELY rare loot) was tough, rewarding, and fraught with risk. In Oblivion, the only time I ever had any difficulty was once; when I faced Umbra at around level 10 with a poorly levelled pseudo-stealth build. It was the most exhilarating piece of content in that game, and nigh impossible to reproduce if one has taken any care with their character's levelling and build, but it was fun. Running out of health potions, having to resort to an incredibly weak bow attack (best weapon got disarmed/broke, iirc, others had the same happen until I ran out of health enough that melee wasn't an option) while trying to heal with the weakest healing spell, practically no magicka to speak of, and hiding on that little ledge where Umbra can't get to you.

I remember that combat in great detail, because it was the ONLY moment from that whole game which got me into it like I felt half the damn time with Morrowind. What does Dark Souls resemble in this sense? Morrowind. What does every other game on the market resemble? Oblivion. It's a horrendous downwards trend in the level of complexity and difficulty in games, sold under the headline of "mass-market appeal", and it sucks. But is unlikely to cease any time soon. We'll be limited to one or two really good titles per year (depending on how many consoles/gaming PC you have access to), and the rest of the stuff will be mass-market cookie-cutter junk. Not that said junk cannot be FUN, it can be, but it is often only so in a limited sense over a limited timeframe - something which I'm sure the producers are counting on, at least the cynical side of me.

There we go, rant complete. And I even managed to make this discussion about why Morrowind is awesome.

Well, it was kind of inevitable! I agree though, I only played through Morrowind once, but from what i remember, if you dared to enter a dungeon that was full of high-end creatures, and managed to get to the loot at the end, it was a genuine reward, as the enemies didn't scale according to your current level, and neither did the loot. So if you were bold or sneaky enough, you could get powerful rewards at quite a low level.

Whereas in Oblivion, the dungeon would be the same difficulty relative to your level, and the loot would also correspond - making early exploration and risks pointless in a way.

Traveller, have you tried the S.T.A.L.K.E.R games? if you're looking for a challenging open-world, these might be more up your alley.

[Defiance]

To be fair, Dark Souls didn't change all that, Demon's Souls did. You all just jumped on the bandwagon with Dark Souls.

[Morgoth]

Sometimes I feel like there's only ever two conversations in the games forum.

[Mentalist]

Morgoth, on 23 March 2013 - 10:05 PM, said:

Sometimes I feel like there's only ever two conversations in the games forum.

Morrowind and Dark Souls ?
lol

not a lot of strategy love out here these days, 'tis true.

Defiance, that MAY have something to do with Demons Souls being an exclusive, whilst Dark Souls went multi-platform

This post has been edited by Mentalist: 23 March 2013 - 10:42 PM