Llyranor

I almost regret preordering for that rooster hat, but I still have my doubts about the game itself. While it's pretty awesome conceptually, I need to get more impressions about the game/level design and challenge before I actually consider it.

It's even starting to infest other genres. Some FPS nowadays even show off the XP numbers for every shot you get in.

Besides, Sky Crawlers is supposedly a much better flight game for Wii, made by the Ace Combat game.

You mean like this one?

Alright, Gamebanshee is making me keep an eye on the game again.

'sup

Make a list of every game you might want for every system you're considering, then compare them. Unless you're planning to play games with buddies who already have a specific system, you should base it completely on what games you'd actually want from it rather than just getting one or the other for the heck of it. They all have a good selection of games to accommodate broad tastes. I personally prefer the 360, but that's because I find the PS3 to have pretty sucky online for the most part, so I avoid it except for exclusives (a few of those are pretty awesome, I'll give it that). I don't have a Wii, but I guess I want to play Super Metroid and Sin & Punishment 1/2.

So, alandork, how do you find the tactical combat compared to previous CRPGs? Both in terms of actual combat system and scenario design.

CrashGirl is a man.

That's a good point. Paging Gabrielle and her PS:T hatred.

I recommend Mass Effect. You can play a female character who has Volourn with a female-looking alien who isn't really female but everyone really knows is female despite the Bioware PR speech.

There's a very distinct line between expressing dissatisfaction and being Volourned, though. Bioware crossed that line.

That's why it's called a roleplaying game.

The Italian-Austrian-Swiss axis of evil continues in Europa Universalis III. Things have been picking up as we've been getting into constant European-wide conflicts (France by itself was our biggest opponent for a while, and more recently it's been the Portuguese-Spanish-English alliance). Switzerland has been expanding into France, and Austria encompasses most of Western Europe all the way through Greece - with a side of Scotland, whereas I've united Italy, control all of the N/NW Africa, and own half of Spain and Portugal. Meanwhile, all of America is shared between Portugal and England. It's been a rough ride, but I think we've crushed most of our bigger nemeses.

Idiots who complain about WW2 games just need to stop playing stupid Hollywood thrillers. There are plenty of games that make excellent use of the setting.

Matthew Rorie just wants to kill you.

Not enough animu with big eyes and no nose.

The pinnacle of your mom.

It's an appreciation thread, not opposite day.

I didn't realize Nick was your dad.

Explosives are ALWAYS deserving of their own category.

The Airborne Assault series is the absolute best real-time representation of high-level (operational level) strategy and tactics in gaming, and I will accept any challenges to the contrary. The basis of this argument is on both the implementation of command and control/chains of command, and on the presence of time as a crucial element in planning strategy in the form of order delays. You aren't playing a godlike entity with full absolute control of your units, you're a high-level commander. (HistWar looks interesting, but it not yet proven. This series, on the other hand, has been virtually getting unanimous critical acclaim and awards from the wargaming community and press) It is niche PC games like this that will ensure that, despite growing somewhat away from mainstream PC gaming in the last few years - I will always be a PC gamer. As much as I love HoI2, what I consider the best WW2 game isn't HoI2; it's Airborne Assault: Conquest of the Aegean (its predecessor in the series, Airborne Assault: Highway to the Reich, is in a similar vein, but covers Operation Market-Garden). Why is COTA a good WW2 game? It's not Hollywood-style, and it doesn't just implement the WW2 setting just for big explosions and drama. Instead, it uses the setting as a strength of the game, crafting historically accurate scenarios and putting you in the shoes of the general of a particular battle. It's of an operational scale (thus smaller than HoI2), which I think allows for tigher design. COTA covers the battles of Greece, Crete, and a hypothetical invasion of Malta. It's an operational wargame. It's real-time with pause, but plays nothing like a RTS. It tries to be as accurate as possible, avoiding as much gaming conventions as it can - a pseudo-simulation of sorts. How does it do this? I'll present some points posted by someone else on another forum (MarkShot) who does it much better than me, and I absolutely agree with him. Summary: 1) The Order of Battle actually matters. Multi-level chain of command means you can macro- or micro-manage as much as you want. The beauty of it is that the more you micro, the more HQ becomes overwhelmed, learning to longer order delays, so you quickly learn to deleguate. 2) AI is very capable of carrying out your macro orders. In setting your orders, you set out different parameters, and the AI carries them out competently. There are a general view of what order settings you can have available on the left: 3) Order delays means that this CAN'T be a twitch fest, even if you wanted it to be. Every order you implement (because you control battalions and regiments and above, and not single squads or units) takes TIME to be carried out. It takes time for your units to organize themselves and prepare. What this means is that you have to plan out ahead, and anticipate the enemy's plan as well, taking into account various possibilities as well. You can't overcome setbacks by clicking wildly. From a gameplay perspective, that makes it very challenging. Why does no one play this around here? Well, you basically play on a 2D map and manipulate little squares around. You don't see lots of bells and whistles. Despite that, the look is clean, the interface itself is ace and very functional, and it performs really well. It's a big shame, really. I dug the games so much, I went out and bought some books on Market-Garden and the Greece/Crete operations to read more on them. That's what WW2 games should do - stimulate the player to learn more about the conflict. In any case, the upcoming game in the (renamed) series is Command Ops: Battles from the Bulge. It'll actually have a demo, so maybe people will finally try it out. I usually hugely favor turn-based over real-time when it comes to tactics/strategy game. In fact, I will always ALWAYS pick a turn-based tactics/strategy game over a real-time one given a choice - the sole exception being this series. The authenticity that the system brings to the depiction of operational-level strategy and tactics (any such emulation in a turn-based system would be fairly abstracted) is so significant to me that I will even forgo my turn-based bias. http://www.matrixgames.com -------------- I also really like EU3 (in some ways I'd even favor it over AA, such as co-op), Men of War (awesome implementation of Rambo-style action and tactics/squad controls), and Close Combat.

This may come as a shock, but Nick and me already bought WaW. Mine is still in the mail, though. That's just plain crazy talk. Whatever happened to Jags? Disappeared off the face of the earth is what happened to him. Probably bought a PS3!

This may come as a shock, but Nick and me already bought WaW. Mine is still in the mail, though.

You're Robin.