RPGmasterBoo

I doubt I could post anything that would appease your personal definition of "landmark". Give me anything. Because every adventure game I've played in the last few years has been low budget formulaic misery. IMO if there's a genre that has become a heap of cheap unplayable knock offs its the P&C adventure. Shooters seem innovative by comparison. What are these games that better than the P&C classics? How exactly are they better?

Err, what? What are these new adventures better than Grim Fandango, Monkey Island etc. Forget that, name me one landmark adventure in the last 5 years and you win a cookie.

No, it just makes you easily satisfied. ....muahahahahahahha.... ahem, yes. I'd say that's a better thing than never being satisfied with anything. I'm one of the rarely satisfied people so I don't know what you're talking about

I hated F3's combat, art direction, graphics, animations, interface, inventory, story, writing, dialog system, sound, characters and brown. Everything was disgustingly yellowish- brown. But I'l swallow that steaming pile if there's a good story. I did it with KOTOR II, and MotB and I can do it again :D What I want to know is, is the amusement park syndrome still plaguing the wastelands or are we getting a real apocalyptic game. Not to sound old school biased, this has been a problem since Fallout 2.

I'm getting it in a day or so and then you're gonna get an opinon. Am not really encouraged with all the bug blues.

No, it just makes you easily satisfied. ....muahahahahahahha.... ahem, yes.

You failed to comply. Sorry to hear that btw. Good luck patching that. Clever girl.

Probably. Portal is by no means a bad game but its possibly overhyped. I think it got overhyped because its an experimental and different game made by a large company - which gave it more than a niche audience (which is what it would have got if it was made by an indie dev).

heh. Bioshock was crap, at least in comparison to its lineage. I liked a lot about it, but the ending was formulaic and the insta respawn killed the atmosphere. I dunno, I could never nerdgasm over shooters anyway. Even my love for HL1 has declined over the years. Same with Deus Ex. Except for UT. UT always gets my blood boilin

I was genuinely bored. And it was over too quickly. I think it maybe an issue with the Half Life engine. I got a bit tired of its visuals by the time I was through with HL2. I have also something of a dislike towards "rogue AI" stories, which is one of the most abused sci fi ideas ever. I mean overall, it was well above the usual stuff that's churned out (which in itself is a commendable thing) but it wasn't an unforgettable gaming experience. Just so it doesn't seem I'm criticizing all new games, I found Company of Heroes phenomenal - which is weird since: a) I hate WWII b) I'm doubly as uninterested in playing the endlessly repeated western front And I loved Stalker: Call of Pripyat even with its heavily flawed storyline and lame third act. @Thorton AP: I'm not trivialising - I'm just not seeing this big deal everyone else is seeing. With Bioshock I could see what everyone liked so much, with Portal... not so much. Dunno what other much valued modern shooters are.... Ah... Crysis. I hate Crysis.

If they're about bugs then we've got major hypocrisy going on because I couldn't complete F3 without using the console to get around a game breaking bug. That hadn't happened to me in years.

Portal with about 0.01 seconds of thinking about it. Also: why are you limiting the criteria to only story based and strategy games? There's nothing really groundbreaking about a first person puzzle game other than the use of that particular perspective. As for the much vaunted story of Portal I don't really see what's the big deal about it. Overall its more of a gimmick than a real game.

Yes. Its because games are a hedonistic indulgence and the end goal of every dev is to make it enjoyable to as many people as possible - to increase sales. Its the user friendliness mantra that started with Microsoft/Windows. While user friendliness in a system that functions as a workspace is logical and necessary in games that are oriented to achieveing a goal by overcoming challanges its only useful to a point - because after that it actually kills challenge. Especially if you are already used to obscure and difficult systems, playing simplified versions lessens the subjective feeling of accomplishment (the reward) and makes the experience unsatisfying. Eg: I was fascinated, coming fresh from ToB, that in NWN I practically couldnt die. Once I realised that, playing lost all purpose. I've had that experience many times since - with various games bending over backwards to make sure I didn't fail my immediate task. That can actually be proven for the RPG and RTS genres. Once upon a time I made a list of all strategy games released 1998-2010 and it was blatantly obvious that the landmark titles after say 2003 got down to one release per year. At best. Exactly. The best games usually came from them.Probably because of an adequate balance of artistic control (lacking in giants) and adequate funding (lacking in indie).

A pity the rest of the game is utter rubbish.

I generally agree with the OP. Its a logical process. Gaming expands > games are made easier to accomodate a wider spectrum of the audience. Also, games get more expensive to make > experimentation becomes much riskier than before > many games stuck in pre defined, sellable packages. The bigger gaming gets the worse (more simplified, rigid in structure) games are gonna get. Since games are a product, market logic rules the day. Still good games will always get made as long as there are people who have a passionate,no nonsense approach to their job. Example: Relic. 1999 Homeworld 2003 Homeworld 2 2004 Dawn of War 2006 Company of Heroes 2009 Dawn of War 2 While they have their ups and downs, the overall commitment to quality can't really be questioned. I didn't like Dawn of War 2, but I couldn't help but be impressed that they dared change a working formula so much when they could have easily sold the same thing all over again.

twas my pleasure

This contradicts what you're regularly posting in the threads about Bioware games. Boo has a job to do, dangit, and it's bigger than whether a game is good or not. He is the Anti-champion of Bioware! Go, Boo, GO! I have different criteria for Bioware. Its scaled according to how good their games could be, which actually measures how close they come to BGII, which they routinely fail to do - and then I conclude that they suck. *puffs on his cigar* ...yeah

An 85 metacritic score is very good. Everything (or almost everything) that gets above 80 on MC is worth playing.

Pardon me while I go gouge out my eyes. Kinky

The horror! The horror! Okay, the image is in new vegas nexus, so it must be from a mod? Right? Right?! Please, somebody say thats from a mod, pretty please? WTF is that???

All of you with pre "closure" accounts on GoG rejoice - Jagged Alliance: Deadly Games will be added on it, for free, in a few days! Aaaand mine just got added.

Hahahahahahahahahhahaha

Everyone is criticizing something Bioware did. I feel obsolete.

I agree. Took me about 2 days to finish it. The story was crap, but the aesthetics and gameplay were ever so good. I played the entire game through without firearms.

That's exactly what I said, didn't you read my post? Those are not really big projects or as bigger than Relic can handle. After all, the first one is not much more than an expansion.