RPGmasterBoo

Oh no, Volourn is posting. Prepare for evac ***an Emission is about to occur, find cover immediately***

I've heard enough about Clear Sky to stay the hell away from it I'll get the first one eventually - its bargain bin material here. Stalker is a victim of its own ambition. It wants to provide everything with a relatively small studio working on it. There is a lot of clunky stuff, but in atmosphere it can pulverize an AAA game - which is a good achievement. Plus there's something about european studios thats quite unique in terms of visual design: Witcher, Gothic games, Drakensang, Stalker (Riddick?)... They have something US game lack.

All of Bioware's games are good RPG's (even NWN, though that may be stretching it a little). That's never an issue. Also the discussion is about comparisons in design choices and other in game stuff. If I read Gromnir right, we agreed ten pages ago that BGII is a better game - we're slaughtering each other over smaller stuff, what was done right/wrong in both games and what could be done better etc.

Good advice, granpa knows his stuff.

It would have been insta legenday status. As it is its just two or three very good games. The lack of consistency in game mechanics is also jarring,

I like the idea that I can circumvent the main plot for as long as I choose, but when I get down to it - its a linear ride to the end. It may not be logical but I find it convenient. I dont like choosing between separate main quest locations because by necessity they make the game seem smaller (because they cant be huge themselves). Each one ends up feeling too small and confined. The elvish camp is ten dudes around a fire. The mage tower has only four floors. The dwarven capital (wonderfully designed btw) is likewise small. But combine all of DA hubs into one mega city and the result is wow. But to have that the plot would have to be constructed around it. Since they wanted to give variety and a sense of epic with all the races and such, the world doesn't feel very large as a result. The locations are broken off and smallish. I'll agree that DA, considering its plot could only work this way. But thats because the plot is constructed around that game design idea, which they introduced with NWN. I never liked it on NWN to start with and its not becoming any more appealing. The Witcher shows that you can in this day and age, still deliver a convincing and well designed city. Also, with several hubs the last one usually ends up being a pushover because of the high level of characters. I don't think its impossible to replicate BGII scope. You'd need a fixed isomertic camera which would erase the need for detail character models and such, and to cut back significantly on voice acting. Of course no one wants to do this because it would be a pure PC title, and not very handy for the consoles.

Well I bought the best assault rifle, and upgraded it. It shoots flat at a hundred meters, easy headshots. I've yet to try a sniper. There is one flaw with the combat, monsters dont do much damage and are consequently less frightening. It would have been better to make them more vulnerable to guns and increase their attack damage. I like that this is one of the few games that a shotgun is damn useful. Since most creatures engage in melee - surprising you by running out of tall grass, there's a real incentive to keep a shotgun handy. And an assault rifle for people. And a pistol when youre scouting anomalies and have only one hand free. And a sniper because you dont really want to fight some of the enemies up close. And tons of grenades. Lol. But there is a cool purpose to each weapon, not much obsolete stuff.

Well it doesn't feel short because of all the exploring there is to do... Dunno. Something like 25-30 hours to see everything. Its all unique content so it had to be small. Yeah, enemies with exoskeletons are tough, (just as much as you are with an exo on since its got a huge armor rating). There are only a handful in the first two areas though, and a shotgun at close range will kill em easily, or a headshot at long ranges. I've yet to see Pripyat. Anyway the animations aren't all that great but the ballistic model for the guns is. It ain't arcade shooting like in CoD, bullets have a trajectory and you have to aim carefully. Especially with the crappier guns.

Again no, shooting human enemies in the arm and shoulders will make them jerk back and fire wildly, shooting in the head is almost insta kill. Creatures dont react though, thats true.

From my experience theyre not invincible when invisible. I shot several when they were invisible (the cloaking thing when they pass close to you) and killed them that way.

Why? use spoiler tags, don't ruin it for Hurlie. ( I want to hear him scream like a lil girl )

Engineers + NOD Subterranian APC = ruin *Btw a friend of mine's playing C&C4 multiplayer beta - he's addicted to it like its crack. I'm eagerly awaiting to see how Kane's plot is going to finish.

I decided to pick up the original Stalker game off Steam. I'm still downloading it, but I always meant to play it and never got around to it. I never played much of the original, this is technically my first Stalker game. Its got flaws, but its unique. First sandbox shooter that works IMO. It can be scary as hell until you get to know the zone. Getting stuck in some god forsaken place in the map because you weren't watching the clock leaves you having to go back to a safe house with a tiny lamp in pitch black darkness, while all sorts of things are howling in the night. And the Bloodsuckers... jesus. When you aren't crapping your pants, there are the disturbingly beautiful surroundings of the Zone, so - I recommend it. Basically its more Fallout in atmosphere then Fallout 3, in some ways even superior to Fallout itself because of its extreme realism. Havent played the first one but I can tell you this one's badass.

No, its because they entertained me as a kid. Firing C&C TS up now will be ruining a childhood fantasy The game is actually pretty sucky

Me too. Though I couldn't play it now at gunpoint

Using that idea in one game is fine. Using it in every game since then - not so much. Like I said, all purpose autopilot. I know why they do it, but that doesn't mean that's the only way a story driven game can be done. Being able to go to their 4 places in any order doesn't do much for me either, I'd rather have a real plot for once. Amen brother.

Its quite fair. Short version: I agree with 90% written above, (and fall into the latter category of people) Basically the game's greatest asset, more so then in any other previous RPG are C&C's and combat. Everything else has been done before and done better. Since choices are wasted on me, (if the setting/story/characters don't grab me), and the combat is brimming with filler - I fail to see the "brilliance". *shrugs* The combat might be fixed in the expansion though. Entering deep roads now

No. Watch the cinematic. The other two explicitly state the morality of the choice, the third one doesn't. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s63PJs2ZijY...feature=related

And Torment in its own weird way. Or not?

Its impossible. A part is in the way the game is marketed, a part in the common opinion of people who play it, a part in the game itself. An RPG is what people in general accept as such. Most of us here are the Bioware, Black Isle, Interplay, Troika school of RPG's thus most of us look at it from that perspective.

RPG traits are not unique or confined to the genre in any way. Especially today when introducing certain RPG trademarks is common in every genre. The pure DnD deal (or its stat heavy copycats) from before was diluted, and basically whats left is to weigh traditional RPG stuff against the presence of other genres in any game. From there it boils down to what's basically half balancing and half opinion. After the gold box games died, stat heavy turn based dungeon crawlers practically died with them. There was always some other stuff being released but the core went with that srting of DnD titles. Then Fallout and Baldurs Gate came along, with BG being a more successful formula, mostly because it took its mechanics from the rising real time strategy genre, and was more exciting to play for most people. Openly turn based RPGs games slowly became obscure while the Infinity engine spawned several successful games. Even the supposedly complex IE games were later simplified in terms of mechanics to the level set by Diablo years ago, with KOTOR, NWN not being significantly more complex to play. Today its the consoles pulling the strings which boils the IE formula down to the level of action games. Basically an RPG is what passes for one among gamers at the time. The people who played the original Pool of Radiance and such, and without knowing how things developed later would most probably not recognize any modern RPG for what it is save perhaps DA. And even that is questionable. The genre evolves: stat heavy dungeon crawlers > (birth of action RPGs with Diablo) > Infinity engine - BG (half RTS, half traditional dungeon crawler) > Infinity engine becomes more story driven BGII, PST, Tob while at the same time retaining much of the dungeon crawling (ID series) > mechanics simplified even more: NWN, KOTOR, story remains, choices become more pronounced> action RPG's practically push the stats and gameplay complexity out of RPG: JE, ME, ME2, all thats left is the story and C&Cs That's just Bioware used as a case study. All the while the action RPG continues to be a viable formula, (Bethesda's work included, also becomes more action oriented) with diablo clones practically conquering everything through WoW. Troika kicks the bucket, Black Isle does and basically all that's left of what most people consider traditional RPG's is Bioware. So far they only return to the formula once, with DA and its too early to tell where its going. All this just means one thing: the genre evolves at a faster pace than you can form categories for it. The other thing is that its a balancing game, there has to be enough basic components for something to be considered an RPG. How much is that? That's a bit vague I'm afraid.

Of course, but killing most of your potential candidates, and hiding information from them isn't exactly the best advertising for your cause. 1. I disagree, why you choose to join the Wardens and how you're pushed into it is the weakest part of the plot that I've seen so far. When that impression washes away things become considerably better. 2. The issue was not whether the PC would join the Wardens. After all the entire plot hinges on that you choose to be a Warden, but the way you're pushed into it is off putting. Like Humanoid said, chance/bad luck/preordained destiny beats being bullied into it by an NPC. Of course you could do it all willingly, but there is no compelling reason to do so unless you're a total altruist. I do have a general complaint about the reuse of the Jedi/Spectre deal for the third time, but I've mentioned the reasons too many times already. Good idea btw, makes more sense then my mage leaving his comfy tower.

^ Hahahahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahha! DD wins! I'd sue them.