[Traveller]

Defiance, on 23 March 2013 - 10:04 PM, said:

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

Hey, I had Demon's Souls first... I was halfway through a newgame+ when DS 2 appeared.The fact it went multi platform might have had something to do with it being more popular though...


And no, not checked out S.T.A.L.K.E.R..... yet.

This post has been edited by Traveller: 23 March 2013 - 11:23 PM

[Silencer]

Mentalist, on 23 March 2013 - 09:42 PM, said:

*snip*

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.

This.

Defiance, on 23 March 2013 - 10:04 PM, said:

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

True. But I couldn't play Demon's Souls because it was only on PS3, for some stupid reason.

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

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

As for this and...

Mentalist, on 23 March 2013 - 10:41 PM, said:

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.

*snip, because it is what I said up-post about exclusivity*

This...first, it's a testament to those games.

Second...have you seen the dedicated Crusader Kings II thread? X-Com discussions? So nyah.

My point is; the general thread keeps coming back to those games, because they are awesome. They always get brought up in other threads, because they are awesome. Everything else only gets mentioned in their own threads/in passing when people are enjoying them in a limited time frame, while those are eternal.

[Mentalist]

Silencer, on 24 March 2013 - 02:09 AM, said:

Mentalist, on 23 March 2013 - 09:42 PM, said:

*snip*

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.

This.

Defiance, on 23 March 2013 - 10:04 PM, said:

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

True. But I couldn't play Demon's Souls because it was only on PS3, for some stupid reason.

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

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

As for this and...

Mentalist, on 23 March 2013 - 10:41 PM, said:

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.

*snip, because it is what I said up-post about exclusivity*

This...first, it's a testament to those games.

Second...have you seen the dedicated Crusader Kings II thread? X-Com discussions? So nyah.

My point is; the general thread keeps coming back to those games, because they are awesome. They always get brought up in other threads, because they are awesome. Everything else only gets mentioned in their own threads/in passing when people are enjoying them in a limited time frame, while those are eternal.

I'm SURE that you being an undying fan of one of the two games oft mentioned is nothing more that a mere coincidence,

This post has been edited by Mentalist: 24 March 2013 - 03:10 AM

[Silencer]

Mentalist, on 24 March 2013 - 03:10 AM, said:

I'm SURE that you being an undying fan of one of the two games oft mentioned is nothing more that a mere coincidence,

Naturally. What else could it be? O.o

[Macros]

Rome tw, gets love all over the place.
so fuck all of you

[tiam]

R:TW is glorious and theres alot of general TW talk on the boards.

My playthrough of Medieval 2 is also glorious though I wish an isolated city state surrounded on all sides would simpl accept peace. I tried offering a genrous peace but when they offer peace they want ridicuous money in exchange for peace.

[MTS]

I'm kinda nervous about going back and doing a Medieval 2 playthrough again. Crusader Kings II has spoiled me for decent AI. I have hopes Rome 2 will be better, but I'm not overly optimistic given CA's track record...

[tiam]

Its still a great game but the lack of depth is trying sometimes. If on the next Rome game they have a newer more advanced campaign map and a 'classic' style similar to the original Rome that would be good. Though this is unlikely.

Regarding there only ever being two discussions on the game boards its self fulfilling. Whenever a game comes out all the Morrowwind bummers just go on out about how much better Morrowwind was compared to modern games which kills any talk of the new game brought up.

I have never played Morrowind and I think Skyrim is much better. Thats right... I went there...

Though I got my brother Demon Souls for xmas and he says he doesnt like it, the controls are clunky and the camera/targeting is off. The game is hard enough but its more frustrating that the tools your given to do a hard game are so flawed. That opinion is putting me off buying Dark Souls. That and the fact its 27 pound preowned.

[Silencer]

Jean-Claude Van tiam, on 24 March 2013 - 11:09 AM, said:

Its still a great game but the lack of depth is trying sometimes. If on the next Rome game they have a newer more advanced campaign map and a 'classic' style similar to the original Rome that would be good. Though this is unlikely.

Regarding there only ever being two discussions on the game boards its self fulfilling. Whenever a game comes out all the Morrowwind bummers just go on out about how much better Morrowwind was compared to modern games which kills any talk of the new game brought up.

I have never played Morrowind and I think Skyrim is much better. Thats right... I went there...

Though I got my brother Demon Souls for xmas and he says he doesnt like it, the controls are clunky and the camera/targeting is off. The game is hard enough but its more frustrating that the tools your given to do a hard game are so flawed. That opinion is putting me off buying Dark Souls. That and the fact its 27 pound preowned.

That's the new site owner's favourite game you're trash-talking there, buddy. Not to mention admitting you've never played something is a GREAT way to start a comparison. >.>


Just sayin'.


Oh, and the Dark Souls controls were fine for me. But that was on Xbox, not Playstation. *shrug*

[Garak]

If you have never played Morrowind then how can you judge which is better? In some ways Skyrim is superior (it's a really pretty game and handles very well) but what makes Morrowind such a great game isn't the mechanics (which allow you do to even more stuff than Skyrim and makes being a vampire a real curse instead of ... whatever that was that Dawnguard did) or the story (which is actually better and becomes a subversion of the the Chosen One story line) but the setting. Skyrim has vikings, romans and dragons (which I love btw) and those are the main reasons I played it. Morrowind on the other hand .... I can't sum it up like that, sorry (except to think Dunmer ftw). It's so exotic and freaking weird at times it's awesome. Just look at some of the artwork it inspired:


Ald'Ruhn (the Redoran capital)





Vivec (the Vatican for all intents and purposes)






Balmora (the Hlaalu capital)



Plus the best theme in the series.



Between the bickering of the Noble Houses, the general asshole nature of the Cammona Tong, the various guilds and their bickering and the giant mess about the prophecy of Nerevar reborn (which adds religion into the mix as if there weren't enough things happening anyway), there is a ton of stuff to do. The setting draws you in with it's strangeness and keeps showing you stuff - from the comical and weird to the downright horrific (anything to do with the Sixth House and their bases - seriously why were those chairs stacked like that in the middle of room with chalk drawings around them? WHY?). Plus if you skip this game you will never why we all think that Saint Jiub is beyond awesome. And he's the very first person you talk too!



Now that that's been said let's move on. Someone mentioned Rome TW. I loved that game but I liked Medieval 2 more (because I love choking the Mongol Horde with German Knights more than I do with Romans .... kinda ......................... the expansion with the Teutonic Order resulted in me having villain laughs as I conquered everyone with the Order). However I can't wait for Rome 2, I'm just afraid my computer won't be able to handle it (strangely enough I wasn't that thrilled with Shogun 2 but I think that's because the setting doesn't interest me as much). My favorite RTS game however will always be Myth 2 (with the TFL mission pack added obviously).

And now I'm replay ME again. The entire thing. Because why not (and I can't get enough of FemShep and Garrus).

This post has been edited by Garak: 24 March 2013 - 12:00 PM

[Morgoth]

Nothing wrong with a full ME playthrough.

I think that ME2 was one of my favourite game experiences, flaws and all.

This post has been edited by Morgoth: 24 March 2013 - 01:23 PM

[Studlock]

Reading through this thread it seems I may be an odd(?) gamer. I grew up playing SNES and the first two playstations and didn't remember anything being overly hard (I should hard and fair, because sometimes games would be unfairly difficult to artificially increase play time like make enemies damage sponges) compared today nor do I remember anything being 'dumbed down' (Mario at the end of day was stupid as shit).

I eventually got a computer and honestly it's cost more than what it was worth, the improved graphics is nice but kind of just their. The gameplay, and this is most definitely because I grew up play with controllers, is not that above controllers (outside of fps because of the increased precision which unless for a pro isn't really needed). Download times are as annoying as blowing on the carriages. Some of the older games I have gotten into were either broken messes (Elder scrolls which honestly aren't that amazing--I've played the first four) or I found to kind of boring (god, people are going to hate me for this, games like Baulder's Gate). Strategy and weird indie puzzle games are basically I ever turn on the computer to play games. That and the Witcher which is not really like any of the old games people claim it's a throw back to.

So in conclusion I don't give a shit about difficultly, the computer cost more money than it's worth, ES is not a good series, older games are viewed with rose tinted glasses, and I am sure everyone is going to hate me. Essentially I am one of those console gamers everyone loves.

This post has been edited by Studlock: 24 March 2013 - 01:52 PM

[Mentalist]

Studlock, on 24 March 2013 - 01:50 PM, said:

Reading through this thread it seems I may be an odd(?) gamer. I grew up playing SNES and the first two playstations and didn't remember anything being overly hard (I should hard and fair, because sometimes games would be unfairly difficult to artificially increase play time like make enemies damage sponges) compared today nor do I remember anything being 'dumbed down' (Mario at the end of day was stupid as shit).

I eventually got a computer and honestly it's cost more than what it was worth, the improved graphics is nice but kind of just their. The gameplay, and this is most definitely because I grew up play with controllers, is not that above controllers (outside of fps because of the increased precision which unless for a pro isn't really needed). Download times are as annoying as blowing on the carriages. Some of the older games I have gotten into were either broken messes (Elder scrolls which honestly aren't that amazing--I've played the first four) or I found to kind of boring (god, people are going to hate me for this, games like Baulder's Gate). Strategy and weird indie puzzle games are basically I ever turn on the computer to play games. That and the Witcher which is not really like any of the old games people claim it's a throw back to.

So in conclusion I don't give a shit about difficultly, the computer cost more money than it's worth, ES is not a good series, older games are viewed with rose tinted glasses, and I am sure everyone is going to hate me. Essentially I am one of those console gamers everyone loves.

Meh, to each his own
I've never owned a console in my life, even picking up a controller instantly frustrates me, because I have to use ony my thumb as opposed to the 3 fingers of WASD/arrow keys. I feel that buying something exclusively for gaming is a waste of money (whereas a PC can be used for work and recreation, so it's ok).

I'm yet to play Morrowind (gasp, yeah, I know), I've missed the golden age of 90's RPGs and am now working my way through them on occasion (back in those days I was a hopeless RTS junkie).

Oh, and I've hated FPSs until I played Deus Ex. And I still can't stand straight up "walk that way and kill everything" shooters.

Now, back on Topic- Medieval II is a great game. I still need to get back to my Kingdoms game and finish conquering Britannia with Wales one of these days.

[tiam]

I was simply trolling with my Morrowwind comparison to Skyrim. Though there is nothing like wandering round the woods being attacked by a troll then having a dragon attack the troll watching them fight for a time before running your low level stealth build ass away from the scene of the crime.

The plot of Skyrim is not the main draw for me. Im sure Morrowwind had a more complex plot that did this and another with bells on but it doesnt compare to a beautiful sandbox full of dragons.

Anyway i cant quite bring myself to play RE6. It just didnt draw me in the way 4 did.

[Silencer]

Jean-Claude Van tiam, on 24 March 2013 - 09:33 PM, said:

I was simply trolling with my Morrowwind comparison to Skyrim. Though there is nothing like wandering round the woods being attacked by a troll then having a dragon attack the troll watching them fight for a time before running your low level stealth build ass away from the scene of the crime.

The plot of Skyrim is not the main draw for me. Im sure Morrowwind had a more complex plot that did this and another with bells on but it doesnt compare to a beautiful sandbox full of dragons.

Anyway i cant quite bring myself to play RE6. It just didnt draw me in the way 4 did.

The point being made with regards to the Morrowind vs Skyrim plotlines is not restricted to the main quest. The main quest in Morrowind is years ahead of the Skyrim one, true, but it is not the main draw of that game either. Morrowind is that "beautiful sandbox" you describe - and more. Guild quests are more complex and interrelated, there are numerous factions which are at odds, meaning you can't just join everything and do everything (hey, Studlock! This be the "dumbing down", yo! ) with a "master of all trades" generic character that takes thirty seconds to level up.
It may not have dragons, but it's got more than enough to make up for the rest.

Also...you do realize that trolling is against the Code of Conduct, right?

Studlock, on 24 March 2013 - 01:50 PM, said:

Reading through this thread it seems I may be an odd(?) gamer. I grew up playing SNES and the first two playstations and didn't remember anything being overly hard (I should hard and fair, because sometimes games would be unfairly difficult to artificially increase play time like make enemies damage sponges) compared today nor do I remember anything being 'dumbed down' (Mario at the end of day was stupid as shit).

I eventually got a computer and honestly it's cost more than what it was worth, the improved graphics is nice but kind of just their. The gameplay, and this is most definitely because I grew up play with controllers, is not that above controllers (outside of fps because of the increased precision which unless for a pro isn't really needed). Download times are as annoying as blowing on the carriages. Some of the older games I have gotten into were either broken messes (Elder scrolls which honestly aren't that amazing--I've played the first four) or I found to kind of boring (god, people are going to hate me for this, games like Baulder's Gate). Strategy and weird indie puzzle games are basically I ever turn on the computer to play games. That and the Witcher which is not really like any of the old games people claim it's a throw back to.

So in conclusion I don't give a shit about difficultly, the computer cost more money than it's worth, ES is not a good series, older games are viewed with rose tinted glasses, and I am sure everyone is going to hate me. Essentially I am one of those console gamers everyone loves.

You seem to be mistaking "old games" for "classic games". Mario is not what we're talking about. What we're talking about are games like Planescape: Torment. Arcanum. Deus Ex. Thief. If you can honestly look at those games and say that today's games are not easier (and I don't mean in arbitrary difficulty - if you take Morrowind vs Skyrim/Oblivion - the difference is obvious and fundamental in the game mechanics: in Oblivion, enemies and loot are scaled to match your level. Nothing can EVER be much stronger than you. Compared to Morrowind where this was not, by and large, the case, and where waltzing into dungeons blindly meant you died very fast. Either you were playing on the "easiest" end of the slider, or you were playing different games. It is not subjective - it is an objective fact of the gameplay mechanics) and less complicated/interesting; see: choices that affect plot outcomes, choices which are mutually exclusive, more variety of factions, quests, etc, different and interesting characters - and that INCLUDES NPCs, which in modern games are *completely* generic filler...I could go on.

The point is, this isn't rose-tinted glasses. We know this, because you can physically go back and play these older games and SEE the differences. They still stand out today. So how is that nostalgia speaking? If it's STILL better?

Also, I think you might just not be an RPG gamer. I mean, what games do you like? Call of Duty? (i.e. the "on-rails cinematic shooter extraordinaire" - no freedom to approach from different angles, endlessly respawning enemies until you cross the invisible line, generic plot. I don't hold it up as a perfect game, but even the original Halo at least gave you options, and space to explore, albeit linked by linear paths...that's still better.) That's fine. To each their own. But your games are categorically more simplistic than the games I like, and the trend to cater to that market vexes me. *shrug*

(Also, *that* is why the Witcher is a hearkening back to the older games - it's not perfect, but it's very good in bucking the trend. Same as Dark Souls/Demon's Souls.)

[Defiance]

Am I the only one who found the dragons in Skyrim to be disappointing? I'm not sure what I expected, but Todd Howard & team kept going on about just how amazing they were and how much they added to the game. While they were definitely fun to fight at first, they followed predictably behavior patterns and really weren't as threatening as they were made out to be.

I was hoping that dragons would actually be destructive, with the ability to burn down houses and slaughter entire villages if you didn't stop them. Apparently wood doesn't catch fire, though, and I rarely see NPCs die from dragon fire. I suppose this would have angered all of the people who need the "perfect save" where everyone is saved and every single quest is completed, but I think it would have been nice if the dragons actually felt like they could bring ruin to Skyrim.

Alduin is the perfect representation of dragons in Skyrim: he looks cool, but ultimately he doesn't amount to shit. The so-called World Eater destroyed a single town, and this was at the beginning of the game. Nobody gave a shit about Helgen because we never got to do stuff there in the first place (basically Kvatch 2.0). I don't know what he did for the rest of the game, other than running away (why?) whenever I encountered him resurrecting a fellow dragon. It would have been nice to see why exactly he's supposed to be so threatening in the first place.

[Garak]

I was just happy we had dragons but yeah they didn't really have an impact on the world.

@Silencer I wonder what you'd make of my gaming life. I've played RTS, TBS, RPG, space sims (TIE fighter, Starlancer) and FPS. I enjoy playing a few levels of Halo or CoD, sacking a town in Total War and then forgetting to have a social life because I fired up an RPG.

[Dolmen 2.0]

@defiance:

Yup. The dragons were a big problem for me as well. Skyrim is an awesome game but ultimately nothing you do or nothing done around you has much consequence and nothing the dragons did altered the larger scope of the game. Maybe its bioware spoiling the stew but Personally I think Bethesda is far too timid about committing to any definate story element, afraid it would limit gameplay. If dragons were an actual calamity I would have loved the game far more. I expected a dark soulsish situation with a finite number of dragons each so badass you'd have to be a virtual level 45 juggernaut to survive sadly they are pretty easy and obvious.
Its a great aspect of the game but surely could stand for some improvement. I found it most exciting to mod up dragon difficulty and hang around solitude where the dragons ALWAYS landed outside the town gates. Every NPC pitched in to fight the thing. Would love to see the dragon smashing houses apart. And leaving with plot relevant npcs you cant afford not to rescue etc etc.

[Traveller]

My first impressions of the dragons in Skyrim were good. Hearing one overhead in a blizzard on a mountain path, landing somewhere nearby, to see it stalking towards me through the snow like the dragon in Dragonslayer was pretty cool. Also defending a town against one, to find the dead body of an npc I'd been talking to before the fight was a nice touch, as at the time it looked like anyone could die. However, they are way too easy to kill - I was 1 or 2-shotting them with the bow before long, thanks to the stealth bonus. They just lacked size, and didn't evoke the sort of fear or respect I'd expect from a dragon - killing them was no different to killing a bear.

(And sorry to mention it again, but those dragons are just... mice, compared to a Dark Souls dragon. I dare anyone who has actually killed Black Dragon Kalameet to say otherwise).

I know Skyrim is a different game, but to me it devalues the awesome of a dragon if they are that numerous and underpowered.

This post has been edited by Traveller: 25 March 2013 - 10:24 AM

[Satan]

To jump on the bandwagon of hate: Despite trying several times, I have never finished Morrowind, Oblivion or Skyrim, simply because they bore me. Most of the people above are right in that the atmosphere in Morrowind is amazing. Unfortunately the basic game mechanics of fighting and quest-solving is so damned tedious that it's simply not worth it to continue playing. Sort of the same can be said for Oblivion and Skyrim, but not to the same extent on either point (better basic game mechanics, but much worse atmosphere).