Want a new CRPG.

[StillLife]

Gromnir's assessment is wrong. IWD is nothing like FOT. Comparing FOT to IWD is an insult.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

True, FO: T was much, much better. :D

[Dark_Raven]

Not even close.

[Gromnir]

Gromnir's assessment is wrong. IWD is nothing like FOT. Comparing FOT to IWD is an insult.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

an insult? to which game?

 

they play real similar... major difference is that you only create 1 meaningless character in fo:t as posed to a whole party of such characters in iwd. heck, your stats and skills actually has some small impact on game in fo:t. there is probably more meaningful rp choices in fo:t than in iwd.

 

 

both games is pretty good if you simply plays 'em as squad-based tactical combat games with limited rp elements. we liked some of the story aspects of iwd better than we liked fo:t, but we liked the slightly more demanding tactical combat sophistication o' fo:t. the iwd art were better, but we gives the nod to the fo:t voice talents... and we admit that we prefer the fo setting (even if it were modified for fo:t) as 'posed to the FR d&d setting.

 

first 2/3 of fo:t v. iwd? am not seeing how the developers of either game could or would feel insulted by the comparison.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Setzer]

Ok I got Wizardry 8 installed, patched, modded and ready to go. So, would any of you who have played it mind giving me some party tips for a first run through? I was going to go with 2 tanks, rogue, healer, mage and a ranger....or something along those lines. Aslo, which skills are really helpful to put points in?

 

I played the demo over the weekend and I must say I enjoyed it. Reminded me of my M&M playing days but with a more in depth character development system. Graphics are so-so but I understand it's a 5yr old game. If the story and gameplay are great then I can deal with the dated graphics.

[Cantousent]

My biggest bit of advice is to steel yourself for the battles which will come at every other step. Then, I would secure a large supply of no-doze as the battles keep coming and coming and coming. Next, I would make sure everyone who can learn awaken. It'll come in handy when the party finally succumbs to fatigue because of the endless battles from hell. Finally, I would make sure that you have a sufficient number of pious men in your party to pray that your next step won't result in another random spawn.

 

Seriously, though, the spread of fighters and spellcasters seemed to work pretty well. I seem to recall that I thought the game favored might over magic, but that's just a gut feeling and it's been a whlie.

[LoneWolf16]

Hellgate: London. Me. Want. Bad.

[Cantousent]

Hellgate is on my must-buy list.

[LoneWolf16]

Is it true that its Vista only? And DX 10 only? Which makes absolutely no practical sense.

[Pidesco]

This is what Netjak had to say about Hellgate.

 

#8: Hellgate: London, PC

 

Nothing says "We have no original ideas" more than leaving your old company to form a new company, and then making the exact same game you made back at your old company. Ladies and gentlemen, I present Flagship Studios!

 

This game is just about as similar to Diablo 2 as you can get without being sued. Granted, it's fully 3D now, but you still fight demons from Hell, and you still do the same damn thing over, and over, and over again. Randomly generated dungeons, millions of mouse clicks, and 5 points to allocate every time you level. Fantastic.

[Dhruin]

It's part of Microsoft's "optimised for Vista" campaign (whatever that means, exactly) but it's not Vista-exclusive.

[Setzer]

My biggest bit of advice is to steel yourself for the battles which will come at every other step.  Then, I would secure a large supply of no-doze as the battles keep coming and coming and coming.  Next, I would make sure everyone who can learn awaken.  It'll come in handy when the party finally succumbs to fatigue because of the endless battles from hell.  Finally, I would make sure that you have a sufficient number of pious men in your party to pray that your next step won't result in another random spawn.

 

Seriously, though, the spread of fighters and spellcasters seemed to work pretty well.  I seem to recall that I thought the game favored might over magic, but that's just a gut feeling and it's been a whlie.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Wow....sounded like you didn't care for it that much. Thanks for the heads up.

[LoneWolf16]

It's part of Microsoft's "optimised for Vista" campaign (whatever that means, exactly) but it's not Vista-exclusive.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Whew...good.

 

And Soul, it sounds just like the Diablos. Translation: I'm buying it.

[Pidesco]

You can go ahead and buy a crate full of mice too.

[Cantousent]

I'll get Vista early and I'll probably pick up a DX10 within a year of their release. Hopefully, my video problems are solved as of tomorrow and I can just slip the new video card into my system and then run the two SLIed together.

 

As for the whole Diablo thing... sounds like another bunch of diablo haters. Hey, that's fair enough. ...But I liked Diablo, so if this something akin to Diablo 3, I'm happy. Frankly, Netjak sounds like it's inhabited by the same sort of elitist CRPG trogs that give RPGers a bad name everywhere.

[LoneWolf16]

You can go ahead and buy a crate full of mice too.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Mice are cute.

[StillLife]

As for the whole Diablo thing...  sounds like another bunch of diablo haters.  Hey, that's fair enough.  ...But I liked Diablo, so if this something akin to Diablo 3, I'm happy.  Frankly, Netjak sounds like it's inhabited by the same sort of elitist CRPG trogs that give RPGers a bad name everywhere.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Diablo was just a really bland game. Click, click, click, click. Some people feel that games -- more specifically, gameplay -- should be more interesting than basic input functions you might use while doing simple, operating system related functions. How anyone could find that exciting from a reflexive standpoint, or even mentally engaging continues to be beyond my comprehension, which is probably for the best. The Diablo's were a friggin $50 human brain treadmill(without the healthy exercise connotations) disguised as a game and Hellgate looks to be much of the same.

 

Dismiss people who don't find games like that interesting as RPG elitists all you want, but it could very well be they're just gamers who understand gameplay should have moved on past fairly mediocre games of the 80's like Gauntlet.

[alanschu]

Dismiss people who don't find games like that interesting as RPG elitists all you want, but it could very well be they're just gamers who understand gameplay should have moved on past fairly mediocre games of the 80's like Gauntlet.

 

I think this is why he called them elitists. If games "should have moved on" as you say, then why is Diablo 2 easily one of the better selling PC games of all time?

 

Ironically, it's the gameplay of Diablo that is its charm, whether or not you like to admit it. It's not the most complex game in the entire world, but that's part of its charm.

 

Don't like Diablo? Fine. Don't go around saying what gameplay "should" be, when it is obvious that many people disagree with you. If people didn't want this "poor" gameplay, they wouldn't buy it.

[Cantousent]

@SL: And yet the fact remains that I don't see why I should substitute your definition of a good game for mine. I especially don't see why I should substitute your judgement for the many of us who enjoyed Diablo. Great sales might not mean a game will enjoy success as a classic, but at least they show that I'm not alone in how I view the game.

 

Moreover, I don't think you're such a bad guy because you don't like Diablo. I think folks who go out of their way to attack Diablo are the sort of elitist CRPGers who give the genre a bad name. I also have serious misgivings about the idea that they "understand gameplay" better than me.

 

On the other hand, it could just be that I've been angry Eldar all day. Since I seem to be responding to everyone with uncharacteristic hostility today, I'll revisit the issue tomorrow.

Edited June 5, 2006 by Eldar

[alanschu]

Angry Eldar brings up good points, so don't let it get you down

[213374U]

I think folks who go out of their way to attack Diablo are the sort of elitist CRPGers who give the genre a bad name.  I also have serious misgivings about the idea that they "understand gameplay" better than me.

I agree, but not for the reasons you think. I don't consider the Diablos as CRPGs, as there is no roleplaying whatsoever, only a set of statistics you are allowed to play with, that somewhat affect the gameplay of an action game. That's not me attacking Diablo fans or the game itself, it's just the way I see it.

 

 

On the other hand, it could just be that I've been angry Eldar all day.  Since I seem to be responding to everyone with uncharacteristic hostility today, I'll revisit the issue tomorrow.

Me likey!

[StillLife]

I think this is why he called them elitists.  If games "should have moved on" as you say, then why is Diablo 2 easily one of the better selling PC games of all time?

 

Because people bought it? It was obviously an opinion. But I guess I should have been more clear once again that it was just an opinon, just like I tried to be in the first paragraph of that post which you conveniently failed to notice:

 

Some people feel that games -- more specifically, gameplay -- should be...

 

What, do you think I'm under the impression I decide what direction all game design decisions go?

 

Ironically, it's the gameplay of Diablo that is its charm, whether or not you like to admit it.  It's not the most complex game in the entire world, but that's part of its charm.

 

The gameplay sucks. There's nothing there to admit.

 

The above was an opinion, not a statement of fact.

 

Don't go around saying what gameplay "should" be, when it is obvious that many people disagree with you.  If people didn't want this "poor" gameplay, they wouldn't buy it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Don't go around telling people what they can and can't say or think. That's the second time you've told me what opinions I can't express. Who do you think you are to dictate such things? I think the game sucks and said as much. Shut up and deal with it or ignore me, but don't think you're in a position to tell people what to do.

 

@SL: And yet the fact remains that I don't see why I should substitute your definition of a good game for mine. I especially don't see why I should substitute your judgement for the many of us who enjoyed Diablo. Great sales might not mean a game will enjoy success as a classic, but at least they show that I'm not alone in how I view the game.

 

Moreover, I don't think you're such a bad guy because you don't like Diablo. I think folks who go out of their way to attack Diablo are the sort of elitist CRPGers who give the genre a bad name. I also have serious misgivings about the idea that they "understand gameplay" better than me.

 

On the other hand, it could just be that I've been angry Eldar all day. Since I seem to be responding to everyone with uncharacteristic hostility today, I'll revisit the issue tomorrow.

 

I'd never debate that the games were popular, I just personally don't understand why. I do think if so many people stopped anticipating purchasing simplistic garbage like that, maybe video games could continue to advance before the medium stagnates and developers who are trying to do interesting things would get more attention. But then again, obviously people don't really feel they need to advance in depth much, so I and others like me lose.

 

Hate for Diablo and the trends it has set in the industry are justified if you don't like that style of game in the first place IMO though.

[mkreku]

And this is the same guy that's calling my opinions moronic.. Ironic. )

[alanschu]

Because people bought it? It was obviously an opinion. But I guess I should have been more clear once again that it was just an opinon, just like I tried to be in the first paragraph of that post which you conveniently failed to notice:

 

Apparently you conveniently forgot:

 

Dismiss people who don't find games like that interesting as RPG elitists all you want, but it could very well be they're just gamers who understand gameplay should have moved on past fairly mediocre games of the 80's like Gauntlet.

 

After this statement, it is completely obvious that you don't consider yourself better.

 

Seriously, you get offended when people defend themselves when you start claiming that they aren't as deep, intelligent, progressive, or as evolved as you? Grow some thick skin if you want to proclaim that you are somehow superior to people.

 

Don't go around telling people what they can and can't say or think. That's the second time you've told me what opinions I can't express. Who do you think you are to dictate such things? I think the game sucks and said as much. Shut up and deal with it or ignore me, but don't think you're in a position to tell people what to do.

 

Sounds like you're doing the same thing bub.

 

I'd never debate that the games were popular, I just personally don't understand why.

 

It's easy why. Because it's a simple game with minimal learning curve for the significantly vast majority of people that don't have hours upon hours to invest into videogaming. More importantly, people find it FUN!!! If you can't understand why people have different tastes than you, then that is your problem. One that you should probably rectifiy before going all holier-than-thou and implying that other people are essentially not as developed/evolved/whatever as you are.

 

And this is the same guy that's calling my opinions moronic.. Ironic. 

 

It's also the same guy that says PC gaming is cheaper than console gaming.

Edited June 5, 2006 by alanschu

[StillLife]

After this statement, it is completely obvious that you don't consider yourself better.

 

Seriously, you get offended when people defend themselves when you start claiming that they aren't as deep, intelligent, progressive, or as evolved as you?  Grow some thick skin if you want to proclaim that you are somehow superior to people.

 

Preference in games doesn't really reflect on someone's actual character in my book. Put the strawman down.

 

Sounds like you're doing the same thing bub.

 

...that was kinda the point dude. Did you miss the fact I used the same three words you did to begin that statement?

 

It's easy why.  Because it's a simple game with minimal learning curve for the significantly vast majority of people that don't have hours upon hours to invest into videogaming.  More importantly, people find it FUN!!!  If you can't understand why people have different tastes than you, then that is your problem.  One that you should probably rectifiy before going all holier-than-thou and implying that other people are essentially not as developed/evolved/whatever as you are.

 

Pac Man and Space Invaders have simple learning curves and don't require a large dedication of time, yet they're no longer the smash hits they once were even with modern graphics. The appeal clearly goes beyond it being easy to get into.

 

Again, you're going off on a tirade that isn't really related to what I said. I, as in you know...me? I don't personally see the appeal at all. Yes, I can imagine people play them because they're fun for them - that's kinda obvious. Why something so simplistic is fun is what I fail to understand, but I get the whole "people have different tastes than you" thing. Unfortunately, my tastes are superior to everyone's, because they're mine. :cool: Regardless, usually I can find something that would be appealing to other people in a game I don't like, but not those kind of games.

 

Maybe you should take your own advice and grow some thicker skin, and come to grips with the fact not everyone will agree with you one what's good or bad? You'll live longer. If someone explains why they dislike a game, it's not something to get offended by. I just wanted to respond to Eldar's insunation -- which might not have been what he really meant by it -- that people who don't like Diablo are RPG elitists.

 

It's also the same guy that says PC gaming is cheaper than console gaming.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Ah, outright lying now huh? You know very well my point was that upgrading a PC for gaming is no longer much more expensive than buying a console(not a Wii) then it has been before, meaning it's becoming a non-factor. A point which you danced around forever providing nothing to the contrary until you could cling to my reluctance to waste a day bargain hunting around the Internet or stores to fit a figure you threw out there.

 

Grow up and don't resort to making things up to make people look bad. I say enough foolish things without having the things I do say completely misconstrued. And seriously man, stop holding a grudge over something so silly.

Edited June 5, 2006 by StillLife

[Tiliqua]

I don't think I can stomach sp games any more, way too much last century. I would suggest Eve: http://www.eve-online.com/ I'm sure that will keep you going for quite a while.