Llyranor

Heh, I found the FFT translation completely atrocious, so I didn't really get any enjoyment out of the plot. The early PSX era for Square was completely urg. FFT/FF7/Xenogears get praised to crap, but I can't stand their localization.

Story-wise, disc 1 *has* been fairly slow. Still, I've been enjoying it, as the gameplay compensates pretty well. What makes it for me, though, is the hard difficulty. The default game is very easy, apparently. You'd have to download the hard mode DLC (for which you'd have to make a HK account - why MS hasn't made it available 'overseas', I don't know; they've had months). The battles for the most part have been pretty challenging, especially since there are no random battles, so you can avoid them as you want, and exploration has been more fun since you don't run into compulsory battles at a set interval. Dead Rising is pretty cool. For Rainbow Six Vegas, make sure you play it co-op if you're into that. It's awesome.

My brother just bought this game. We played a bit of co-op on Allstar. Two matches, 5-1 and 4-0. Ouch. The AI seems much improved from 07, both offensively and defensively. Playing PK is freaking sweat-inducing. We can barely get out of the defensive zone with even teams anyway. We need to bring our defense up to par before we can even talk about our inexistent offensive. I'll have to work on my deking/aiming then as well.

Regardless of your thoughts on Halo, this is a pretty cool marketing campaign http://halo3.com/believe/ Though, if the game itself ends up disappointing, one would argue that they should have poured that budget into actual game development. Halo1 was an unexpected hit and 2 was rushed, but 3 has no excuse to be a letdown in terms of pure game design. On a brief aside, I have Blue Dragon. Still going through the first disc. The game is pretty solid so far. Traditional design throughout for the most part, but the combat system is fresh enough (though it doesn't necessarily break any major ground), and the job system is good fun. Music is very nice so far. Graphically, I'm pretty impressive by the environmental art. Character-wise, it really depends on how tolerant you are of Akira Toriyama. Story isn't anything to write home about; it's pretty lacking, but at least it doesn't try too hard like in some other JRPGs. I'll be picking up Eternal Sonata next week as well. Can't go wrong with good old co-op.

This seems like an ideal time to bring up the werewolf.

You're in luck, FOPOS is available now http://www.amazon.com/Interplay-Production...d/dp/B00008NRMA Buy quick! Only 4 left in stock!! Or, you could wait for its critically-acclaimed sequel, Fallout 3! http://fallout.bethsoft.com/index.html

Freaking stupid EA. The demo was good fun, and I would have bought the game day1 if they had kept with their original plan of having co-op. Bloody losers.

Personally, I find that if the devs need to err on one side, I'd rather they go for higher difficulty. Gameplay that's too easy and requires little thought isn't very compelling. Of course, the converse is true if the game is simply too hard, depending on the reason. If the game simply promotes grinding and repetitive gameplay rather than trial of various diverging tactics, then it's not much fun, either. That being said, I do agree on difficulty sliders. The DnD CRPG ones, for some reason or another, are complete crap.

Haha, Eldar made the headlines at the Codex.

Assuming you mean Forza 2, I haven't had any problem with it. That being said, I've only played a few hours (which is great fun with a wheel), and haven't touched multiplayer.

Heh. PvP/competitive multiplayer is completely irrelevant to me. Co-op is virtually all I play nowadays (except for some sp titles - but those need to be really good). There are many things I don't find particularly enticing about Halo. Admittedly, it doesn't have good level design, particularly the second half, once you're introduced to the second faction of losers. In fact, sometimes it's downright cut-and-paste, which can lead to several areas in a row looking quite similar to each other. I would have a problem with this if the individual battles weren't enjoyable in and of themselves. But this forum is made mostly of RPG fans, criticizing repetitive gameplay here seems hilarious. Otherwise, story/characters/music/production values overall seem greatly overrated. If no one would have told me that the series was one of the most popular last gen, I wouldn't have noticed. One could argue that this warrants the game's dismissal as not worth playing, but I find it succeeds quite well at the '30 seconds of fun' philosophy the devs were aiming at, which complements the co-op really really well. The previous design points are pretty disappointing overall, but there are many things that it executes exceptionally well. Now, it didn't break any new ground in any particular field, but I don't really give a crap. Recharging shields, lots of ammo lying around, respawning in co-op when out of danger, among other things, add greatly to focusing the co-op experience on the fun gameplay itself, rather than managing other things instead. I find them quite conducive to co-op. Lastly, and I know I wouldn't like the game nearly as much if this wasn't there, the Legendary difficulty is awesome. Especially in the early levels, I can't even remember the number of times my brother and me have gotten ourselves killed over and over and over and over again fighting completely overwhelming numbers/odds. In this diff, depending on the circumstances, even fighting a few of the stock enemies can be quite challenging, especially given how quickly your shield runs out when you're out in the open. This led to a lot of creative planning, heroic kamikaze actions, or hectic escape missions while being attacked from every front. This wouldn't be nearly as fun without co-op, either. With both of these elements (Legendary diff + co-op), I probably would have dismissed the game, but they completely make up for the rest of the game's flaws and so much more. I'm fully aware of its flaws, yet it's my favorite FPS. Other games like HL2 may theoretically have superior design aspects in almost every way, but they don't have those two. In that, I get much more fun out of generic co-op FPS #235 (lol halo) than I would out of a great sp FPS (such as Bioshock, supposedly). Halo 3 is pretty much my GOTY by default unless some other game completely surprises me. Now, this doesn't really apply if you're not the type of gamer who likes to share awesome gaming experiences, or if you'd rather be killing other players instead. Now, depending on the game, though, killing the other players can be a very frequent occurrence even in co-op ('whoops'). I'm not even a Halo fanboy or a populist or whatever label you people call Eddo anyways, I don't like a lot of aspects in Halo. I'm just a co-op player, and Halo excels at that. And that's all I need. Nick and me are playing quite a bit of Rainbow 6: Vegas co-op while waiting for Halo 3. If any of you co-op players are interested in jumping in, or preemptively so for once Halo3 comes out, PM some death threats.

Freaking bloody 4-player online campaign co-op. That (and that alone, probably) will make this my GOTY, most likely. I'm nearing the end of Halo 1. The level design *has* been repetitive, especially the latter parts of the game. But, co-op + the XTRME Legendary difficulty (seriously, why can't more games have ultra-difficult mode? HL2 on hard was a flaming joke) has made it a thoroughly enjoyable experience. Halo 3 may or may not disappoint in the way of the campaign/level design (after Halo 1, I'm really not expecting much at all - though I may be pleasantly surprised), but its core gameplay is pretty much a guaranteed winner even if they play safe. I won't even be picking up Bioshock and Mass Effect until they drop in price.

Who bloody cares, you flaming morons? It's the same freaking game.

You guys should probably make a new spoiler-free impressions thread so that people who don't have the game yet can come and read without fear of being werewolved.

They're not making Dead Rising 2, at least not at the moment. #1 didn't sell the pants off of Nipon. So go the priorities of Capcom. Well, yeah, selling over a million overseas isn't much incentive.

I didn't play Daggerfall. In any case, I wasn't terribly surprised with how Oblivion turned out. I certainly understand (but not agree) with some of the design decisions for the series. That being said, mediocre (at best) storytelling/writing and subpar real-time combat aren't the highlights of the series, and doubtfully had anything to do with the series' success. I was led to believe those things would be fixed in Oblivion. They were slightly improved, but that hardly means anything. In the series' defense, I've enjoyed some of the exploration, though the lack of meaningful choices/consequences ultimately kills it for me. But this isn't a TES bashing thread, despite my subtle jabs. I do enjoy sandbox games - it just depends on their implementation - though they're not my favorite genre. The gameplay has to excel in many ways in order to compensate for the lack of direction. When executed well, I can imagine it being quite good. Despite its flaws, Dead Rising was overall a pretty neat experience - the sense of urgency and time limits added to it, I believe, though some do not agree. Actually, if this had splitscreen or online co-op, I would get it in a heartbeat. It does make quite a significant difference.

Hmm, looks like my concerns were justified. http://www.sonydefenseforce.com/?p=83 Unacceptable.

It doesn't sound like a class-specific feature, though. Paraphrasing from other stuff I read since, but it has its own interface, and supposedly involves story, dialogue and combat. Heh. Spirit Shaman is really just a sorcerer with druid spells, no?

4% is pretty trivial. Then again, the score itself means little. Though, when Oblivion came out, pretty much every big review site gave it high praise. It ended being a tart (still leagues above Morrowind, for which I gave it decent props for, but that's because of how low the bar was to begin with from the previous game). Morrowind is probably the worst game I've paid full price for, but I'm going off-topic with my holy war. The same is being said for Bioshock. Now, I'm pretty sure Bioshock will be the better game, as I've played the demo and the it actually has a solid foundation for gameplay. But, I read through a few reviews and the same crap seems to come around. This will change how you view games in every genre forever? Now, gameplay-wise, it looks like it'll be pretty fun, but to go that far from various sites makes me a bit skeptical. I've also seen how they've mentioned that the story is so good that it'll make you question yourself etc etc and that they don't want to spoil anything for the reader. From what I've seen from the demo, the PC will be a silent protagonist (oh, sorry, you can 'roleplay' your own dialogue, it's immersive!) - even though he did speak while on the plane - while other characters will tell you what to do, etc. Kind of like HL2. Now, narrative-wise, I found HL2 (which I find a great game, actually) urg, especially Episode 1. I did not need that stupid hag PMSing to me in a freaking monologue with my PC not being able to say anything or shut her up. Monologues usually ensure for me that the suspension of disbelief never actually occurs. The promising thing about Bioshock is that you'll be able to have more choices via your actual actions (or so it seems), and that's something to be commended. But then, it HAS been done before as well, and isn't necessarily the pinnacle of narrative. Then again, a lot of games that supposedly had good story I found pretty lackluster. Maybe I shouldn't be dissecting that aspect of the game and just focus on the gameplay - which sounds pretty appealing. I probably sound more negative than I mean it to be, but that's better than a whole thread (or a full page of threads) of hype and praise about the game, which I've seen elsewhere. This isn't the second coming of Zeus, though I'll happily eat my words if it is. EDIT: Wait, SS2 had freaking co-op??? Why the bloody crap doesn't this game have it? I don't care about deathmatch, but give me co-op!1!1!!!!1!11 Jerks.

After Oblivion, the gaming press means very little, though relying solely on reviews was never such a bright idea. I'm pretty sure I'll find this a good game at the very least, since the demo showcased that it has a solid foundation in terms of FPS gameplay, before adding in the various other features. Now, what IS Bioshock? Sure, Rapture is supposed to be a living, breathing world. An environment where characters interact with each other rather than simply with the PC. Exploration surely sounds like one of the appeals of the game. The demo had good atmosphere/production values/details, but given that it was the intro, it was terribly linear (the story didn't make me go boom, either). Will the full game allow more freedom? I don't doubt it. However, I have seen a fair number of previews, where the devs try to explain what the game is about, showing gameplay examples and so on. I'm pondering how much interaction you'll actually be allowed. The plasmids certainly look interesting, and the full game having about 70 of them might end surprising me, given that I've barely seen a fraction of that. Maybe that's where the freedom/interaction will come in. Tinkering with the environment, setting traps, making enemies turn on each other. But has that really never been done before? That being said, it does sound like quite a breadth of different options, and makes the game sound like experimenting around will be fun. So, maybe a thinking man's FPS. With RPG elements. Choice is good, consequence is good. I can live with that. I don't doubt that gameplay-wise, with 70 plasmids and a 'living breathing ecosystem' of various characters that have different relationships with each other, it will be good. Maybe it'll be great, if the full game really has a lot more surprises that we haven't seen yet. I'm certainly willing to see for myself. Maybe it's just that the concept doesn't click for me in just the right way. Or it could just be that the game has been a victim of its own hype for me. I have been getting tired of the Big Daddy-Little Sister awesomeness they keep bragging about. The game is supposed to be about moral choices or whatnot. You can kill the Big Daddy and the Little Sister, which is shaped as a little girl!!!! Or you can choose not to. Perhaps that's where the skepticism stems from. This Levine guy is trying to convince me that that choice is supposed to be mega-deep, but I don't see it. Now, from a gameplay perspective, planning around how to take down a Big Daddy (exploring the surroundings, setting traps, waiting for the right moment, etc) certainly sounds very interesting. From a story/choice perspective, not so much. Maybe I'm just burnt from all that gaming press crap about how Oblivion is supposed to be the epitome of immersion or whatever. Or maybe it's just that the examples I've seen from Levine hasn't really impressed me. I may eat those words someday when I actually do play it, but we'll see. Then again, I haven't played SS2, so maybe I haven't seen the light. I've never experienced Ken Levine's talent as a storyteller in one of his actual games. As for when... months is fine with me. I have a massive backlog. Some games jump the queue and I buy them day 1, but this one hasn't convinced me yet.

You lot should PMS in Skeeter's Junkyard.

While the demo was enjoyable and I'll be picking up the game when I see a good deal, it already sounds like it's getting way overhyped. From what I've read of some of the reviews, is it really going to make us rethink how we view gaming? 9.9 average on gamerankings, heh.

Just finished Phoenix Wright - Justice for All. Absolutely charming series. Trials and Tribulations can't come soon enough. Also going through Metroid Zero Mission. The exploration in the game is pretty nice.

http://rpgvault.ign.com/articles/812/812667p1.html New interview. Fewer but deeper/optional characters sounds good to me. Is the game still max 4 party members including the PC? Hopefully this will be more interesting than just additional equipment. I haven't heard about this before? What the crap is this? Yay for modders. I have to say I'm more interested in the xpac now than I was after finishing NWN2. I'll pick this up once it's available through D2D (which is my NWN2 version).

Regardless of whether the argument actually holds any water or not, does Ebert-dawg even know the first thing about games?