RPGmasterBoo

Because the console gaming peasants can't read.

And? You actually live in a world where most gamers haven't heard about Planescape or Baldur's Gate and think that Oblivion is the best RPG ever. Who cares? We're here presumably because we know better.

Yes, white wolf. please?

When I played the game, I tried the "cover & shoot" but I found that most enemies would just charge me and unload a shotgun in my face. *shrug* So I switched to Rambo tactics which worked great for the entire game. And you unload one in their face and that's how the game is played all the way to the end. I love bashing overhyped games Exactly. Instead of cramming new games whose genre identity is debatable into a two word definition I tried to be more precise *shrugs* And went on to slap it 90%, the grade reserved for truly excellent games. They also called the dialog wheel innovative at which point their credibility took a headshot. Lets leave it at that then. You like the game, I don't. I think my reasons for not liking the game are its objective failings, not just a gut feeling, but whatever.

Is it worth it to play through NWN2 first? In all these years I've never played past the edge of the first town. No, its boring. Read a plot summary somewhere and jump right into MotB. Its approx 25 hours long. The Witcher is approx 40 hours long.

The game degenerates as more and more unfinished parts crop up towards the end, but since you are almost at the end stick with it. The game really runs out of content after hollywood - after that its a rush job all the way to the finale.

Skipping on the time limit a bit, I find Vice City to be a much better game, even if it has less things to do than San Andreas. it has a better story, better aesthetics, better music selection....

Something wrong right there. But I understand what you're trying to say.

The nice thing is that every game's hype machine (or lack thereof) runs out after a few years. Once nobody cares any more, once there's no more money to be made, no more axes to grind, no more mags to sell, games can be seen more clearly for what they really brought to the table ( or didn't bring). True but some are incredibly stubborn and enduring (like Halo) and some run out in a flash, like for example Doom 3. As for Halo, I played it after it was ported to the PC and I couldnt understand what the fuss was about, being weaned on Half Life, Unreal Tournament etc etc it seemed incredibly lame and yawn inducing. I still dont understand its appeal.

Well I don't know to be honest. The gameplay is so far removed from what I consider quality gaming, that I have trouble giving the genre along with casual games, browser games and such any credit. The MMO's are like a text written in a foreign language to me (tried Guild Wars, quit after 3 days), so I'll just shut up about it.

WoW has already written history so to speak, but the passable nature of MMO's (works as long as servers are running and new content coming) is what I think prevents them from being classics. They are not "full" products and exist only as a collective > when the collective goes, the game goes, whereas a classic from the Commodore is still as viable as any classic, whether it is now or a decade into the future.

I think it will sell well, but not obscenely well. Its targeted to a specific crowd, but this crowd should be enough to make a sizeable profit for Obsidian.

Yes. Escape from butcher Bay is a slice of perfection, even with the weird double boss battle/ending.

The gist of the problem. I see it as a victory of the hype machine and advertising over any sort of general consensus of what makes a game great today. Also the broadening spectrum of gamers has set mediocrity and susceptability to style over substance as a desirable trait in a gamer. While this may sound like elitist wankery I think there is plenty of truth in it. Even if you pointed out the lameness and unoriginality of most of those titles, it would serve no purpose as their status is already set.

I said, cult classic, not general classic. The Witcher has too specific an appeal, and its audience is too small to carry weight in a fight against trash like Halo, Gears of War etc. Bioshock will probably gain the title of mainstream classic, but only because its the very highest point of very low times, so to speak. I would also nominate Shadow of the Colossus.

And here I was feeling generous with the inclusion of several titles into the "good" list What havent you played on the good side?

In the realm of strategy: Company of Heroes & Warhammer: Dawn of War (+Dark Crusade) - perfected the squad based RTS formula - outstanding gameplay - outstanding graphical design (CoH) RPG's: Mask of the Betrayer: - cult classic, not general classic because the only area it really excels in is storyline The Witcher: - same as above (cult classic), not on account of storyline but because of its general freshness and uniqueness at the time it was released (this could possibly be tarnished with a lackluster sequel)

Simply because you weren't able to see them, doesn't mean they aren't there. I do find it absolutely delightful that you make a snide remark about how he only sees them because he wants to see them. However, given your rather obvious love of the Witcher, I'm not at all surprised you were never able to see it. You didn't want to, because it'd taint your perspective of it. See, it's easy to have fun like this. I like the Witcher even with its obvious flaws (and it does have a whole lot of them), but there is no game I unquestioningly adore. Scanning my comments for something to b!tch about, is a sign of excessive free time.

I picked up the project Magma updated version of Myth II, which makes it work well on XP. the game still rocks. On the second mission I wasnt paying attention for a second and i was greeted with the happy voiced "Casualties!" as my dwarf decimated half my forces... Good days... And the narrated text is still a bloody good mood setter. I love that box art.

Only partly true. Deus Ex was essentially a FPS, with stealth and RPG gameplay. ME is a TPS with party based combat and RPG gameplay. While the line is thin between them, they are not in fact the same. ME is not very good as a shooter and the party/squad based thing doesnt mix well. I'm arguing that that particular melding doesn't work well at all, because it tries to appeal to cover shooter fans and tactical RPG fans and that there isnt enough quality action for the former and enough party based combat for the latter. I've overlooked the fact that AP is a single character game (dunno how the occasional mercenaries are controlled), so it only has to deliver on one aspect - the shooting, which is inherently simpler - and has been proven to work - in Deus Ex. Thats where the terminology becomes sucky. Because if Oblivion was an action RPG then Morrowind was an action RPG, which leads to Daggerfall being an action RPG, which screws up the whole idea - so lets keep this simple: Mass Effect = BG/KOTOR + Gears of War Does the tactical party thing work? No Does the cover and shoot thing work? Partly, fairly average Does that mean the game is a failure from a gameplay design standpoint? Probably Does that make the game less fun? Entirely subjective. yes for me, no for you. I couldn't get past it, (because it felt extremely unsatisfying and I had the vague feeling that the game considered me a moron) but you could. What I also cant get past is that barely any reviewer mentioned it and thats why i have the need to bring it out. Not only does it not meet the hype of the game (which to be fair almost no game does), it doesnt meet even its own suggested standards. If the game is supposed to have a tactical side with several characters working in unison, then it has to be rated as such. The fact that no tactics were required (which was probably a good thing for you since you odnt like it) was just proof of halfway broken game mechanics. Its like the often featured slew of PC abilities in any game to have it later turn out that spamming one or two is all you need to beat the game.

If it ends up doing what ME is doing it will prove that point. If it fixes the inherent flaws in the conception then I'll be the first to put my dunce cap on. No, an action RPG since the term was coined was effectively a diablo clone. While there is some reflex action in those games its a specific sort of real time micro managment gameplay. ME is a shooter RPG which is substantially different. It isnt a pure shooter since it features multiple controllable characters and pause-issue command combat, taken from Baldurs Gate. In fact its a bastard child of Baldurs Gate/Kotor gameplay and TPS shooting (Gears of War style). And if the shooter part works worse than 1999 TPS games coupled with the fact that the supposed tactical choices of having multiple party members are effectively zero - then something, somewhere, has gone wrong. Combat is at least as important as those to make a complete game regardless of whether you, or me or anyone else care about it in particular. Torment is the only notable exception that got away with crap combat and only by the virtue of its outstanding plot and characterization.

Thats your avarage pad aiming for you. That is precisely the reason why I prefer PC over consoles. Thought as much. How anyone can put up with that sort of frustration is beyond me.

Its a case of bad design philosophy. They are mixing two completely unrelated gameplay types, the reflex based shooter and the tactical RPG and the game is stuck somewhere in between them. Unfortunately there isnt enough reflex skill to satisfy a shooter fan or enough tactics for an RPG player. They also can't seem to decide whether the enemies are shooter enemies or rpg mooks, since the former in general should be capable of quickly and efficiently killing the PC (with good AI and reflexes) and the latter usually are inferior (in tactics) to the player, and slower to react (since its really the stats deciding the outcome, the speed loses importance). The result is a gameplay full of holes like the one we see now. It wouldnt have been so terrible if the game wasnt so immensely overhyped.

Oh, but then you didn't notice how often your party members shoot you in the back There were plenty of reasons to hate them even without that

True, if being shot is an actual danger in the game. In ME it wasnt, 90% of the time. This video has probably been posted before, it is the E3 2009 stage demo, and shows a chunk of gameplay. Now can some kind soul enlighten me as to what AI improvements Greg keeps yapping about, since the enemies seem to follow the well known routine of "charge and die (or they strafe with the speed of a comatose snail)" with the occasional "hide behind box before charging and dying". Its also noticeable that the person playing is either completely inept, or the controls are as unwieldy as before because the targeting reticle moves so slowly and imprecisely it. Also its worth noting that even with the terrible performance of the person/controls all the enemies were defeated easily which again raises the question of difficulty - or rather the lack of it.