Blodhemn

Agreed with this completely. Unfortunately a KS wont provide the funds for such a game. AP was something like $8 million.

Anything not isometric. Can't stand the overrated gameplay.

Hmm, well I never played much of the original Tomb Raider games, not that I didn't like them but just never cared to play a female character back then so I wouldn't have any expectations of what a Tomb Raider game should be. But Uncharted/Far Cry 3? Unless they changed the formula for FC3, those are two fairly different type games - one is 3rd person pushed harder by a story and the other an FPS with sandbox gameplay. I'd definitely prefer the former, as I'm bored to death of most sandbox type games at this point. I'm guessing it is more in line with Uncharted, though?

Is Tomb Raider really that fun? I'll probably just wait for the next sale to get it, but I've briefly read it's somewhat like the Uncharted games. If so, sounds good to me.

Got Bioshock Infinite + Dishonored. Funny that the Bioshock dlc isn't discounted so it costs more than the actual game despite being so short, or so I've heard.

They already made their choice. It makes no sense to "consult" backers at this point, other than some lame PR. Do they really need outsiders making decisions for them? I thought they're supposed to be experienced game developers. During their kickstarter campaign they said that they will draft couple different combat systems that in their opinion will work fine in the game so that people can give their opinion about them and then most of the backers though that was good plan, which is reason why they now ask backers opinion about it. Although during drafting those said combat systems they have started to favor one over other, because in their opinion it's easier and faster to implement, which of course don't mean that it would be the best system for the game, which it is in my opinion, not because it easier to implement, but how they describe it to work versus how they describe other system to work. Informative answer.

They already made their choice. It makes no sense to "consult" backers at this point, other than some lame PR. Do they really need outsiders making decisions for them? I thought they're supposed to be experienced game developers.

My point is that developers should have the freedom to do what they want(which was turn based from what people have said) and was supposed to be the basis for Kickstarter to begin with. But no, they still have to deal with the people who funded the game and give them what they want instead of just do what the developers think is best - which is why they should've had the combat figured out before putting it on Kickstarter.

Lol - glad I didn't back this game. Too many crappy combat games abound. I agree with the guy earlier though who said inXile should've had the balls to decide on the combat system before putting Torment on Kickstarter.

Don't pass your silly right and wrong label onto me. In my view, you are wrong as hellll. So who wins now? Come on guys, hit the green like button so I can feel I won an internet discussion.

Well it's no secret that those in the gaming industry have been trying to make games as equals to other mediums of story telling, for whatever reasons that are alien to me. Games should first and foremost be games, and if the end result is a good story then so be it but let's not apply some sort of preachy standard to games in general - they've been trying to do it for a while and fail each time. I didn't say games are unacceptable for social discussion and the like but let me know when there's a game that actually has good enough writing to be considered some sort of legit critique of society. Mostly all we have is cheesy Bioware dialogues and other fantasy games with dwarf racism and crap. Riveting stuff. Game politics are cliched as helllllll. Maybe the Witcher 1 had some decent stuff mixed in there, but it didn't generate the amount of publicity of those nudey cards. A game like Bloodlines, I'd consider it a work of art for sure. I'm not knocking the industry in that sense, but look at what one of the creators is making as a follow up. Dead State - a real life response to a ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE. The game might be cool but I can only imagine the type of people who would take the scenario seriously.

Yep. Everytime a handful of people misinterpret what I post, I can always count on atleast one person getting it right.

Most game stories are so cartoonish I don't see how anyone can take them so seriously and they probably shouldn't be. I also don't know why I need to look at some historical preachy feature on women to know they weren't all here to serve us, but then again I'm not insecure enough to need *proof*.

xDD Yeah right. I lol'd. Games aren't remotely that serious. Wtf?

I also disagree with the notion that default narrative settings are apolitical. Thanks for sending me to a whiny ass blog.

Can't you tell that's exactly what Bruce wants?

I haven't watched SP in years but in using all the source material from the show, plus voice acting(no matter how annoying) and the writing it just easily has more character to it than most other games. I'm glad Obsidian has gotten the opportunity to make it and I'm much more looking forward to it than the isometric fantasy, PE, which is just so played out and doesn't appeal to me whatsoever.

It could be the worst SP episode ever written and it'd still be better than 99% of other games' story/characters. Not to say that SP is that good but that most games are that bad in the story/character department.

Yeah, if only every game were in illogical isometric view with delayed pathfinding and broken combat systems we'd be in strategic heaven.

It sucks but atleast we'll be getting what you'd think to be a fairly polished game. People complain if publishers release games too soon, now they're doing the opposite.

I think if you're getting fed up with the original you may want to pass on DS2 as DS2 will feel like the second half of the game you're already playing, It hits the ground running, you basically get Isaac back to the level he was when the original ended very quickly and then they keep adding new weapons and monsters. DS2 is very combat oriented and has much better level design. The scary moments were all but abandoned but it does have some really, really great interactive cut-scenes, it's one of the better games at making you feel like you're in an action movie. Isaac has a voice now and both he and the supporting cast are entertaining to listen to as the game progresses. If you ever get the chance though, Dead Space 3 is definitely worth picking up some time. It is even more combat oriented, uses a better engine, has a very popular crafting system and is a co-op game akin to Resident Evil 5. Ah cool, well I might as well pick up DS2 then anyway. Thanks. I already have DS3 from the humble bundle, but I'm a bit of a nerd and will have to play them in chronological order.

Just checked it out. The game looks ridiculously entertaining to me.

Is Dead Space 2 worth getting/spending time on? Currently playing Dead Space on the Ps3, and while the RE type gameplay isn't bad, it doesn't really feel like a game that requires a sequel. I'm guessing it's more of the same.

Contrast looks nice but some obvious borrowing from Bioshock's theatrical design. Surely they get a pass on that since everyone loves Indie and hates AAA. I never used the grenade launcher anyway, but I guess that'd suck if you relied on that weapon.

It's just a quick cover up for the game's nonexistent art design. How a zone like Vegas can be represented in such a bland, tasteless, odorless fashion is really quite a feat.