What are you playing now?

[Keyrock]

 

 "Freakin'  NFL, when they're not covering up beating the crap out of women"

 

While the NFL handled it wrong, there was no cover. It was known he had punched his fiance, knocked her out, and thend ragged her out of the elevator ebfore the video was shown to the public. So, don't make stuff up. Plenty of reasons to fire Godell. No need to make stuff up.

 

Are you sure that's confirmed because the interview I watched with him he said they didn't know the full scope of the violence, then when he saw the video they decided  to act  against Ray Rice

 

They (The NFL and, more specifically, Roger Goodell) are liars with no morals whatsoever and are fabricating stories in a desperate attempt at damage control.  If you think the NFL, the richest and most powerful sporting organization in the USA, wasn't able to obtain a video from an elevator of a casino, a video everybody knew existed, because everybody knows that every single square inch of a casino is video taped 24/7, then there's a bridge I'd like to sell you.  Bottom line:  Roger Goodell and the NFL knew exactly what happened all along and tried to sweep it under the rug because the Ravens didn't want to lose their star running back for an extended period of time.  When the video came out the already large public outcry for the utterly ridiculous 2 game suspension became too high so Goodell and the Ravens both changed course and changed the punishment.  

 

Apologies for derailing this thread. 

[Volourn]

" If you think the NFL, the richest and most powerful sporting organization in the USA, wasn't able to obtain a video from an elevator of a casino "

 

I never claimed this.

 

Also, to me, the video chnaged nothing since we were all told very clearly what happened.

[Keyrock]

My reply wasn't really aimed at you, Volo.  You just happened to get caught in the quote pyramid.

 

Anyway, back to Wasteland 2 for me. 

[Tale]

Eh, up until Level 20, it doesn't really matter that much.  You can get by with weapons you just randomly pick up along the way.  Some of the guns/armor I had that wasn't blue was as good or better than the ones I had that were.  But after Level 20, you sort of need it to level up more as you need to find armor components with a "Light" score to raise your level up past 20.

 

The campaign/co-op reminds me a lot of Borderlands 2.  The MP reminds me of Halo.  So if you loved/hated those games, you'll love/hate Destiny.

Almost bought it today, checked reviews and one said that the story mode was short and repetitive. This put me off.

 

Is that an opinion you share?

 

Borderlands could easily be called repetitive, but definitely not short.

[ShadySands]

 

Eh, up until Level 20, it doesn't really matter that much. You can get by with weapons you just randomly pick up along the way. Some of the guns/armor I had that wasn't blue was as good or better than the ones I had that were. But after Level 20, you sort of need it to level up more as you need to find armor components with a "Light" score to raise your level up past 20.

 

The campaign/co-op reminds me a lot of Borderlands 2. The MP reminds me of Halo. So if you loved/hated those games, you'll love/hate Destiny.

Almost bought it today, checked reviews and one said that the story mode was short and repetitive. This put me off.

 

Is that an opinion you share?

Yes.

 

But is fun for a while and since I only get to play a little here and a little there it's not as obvious

[GhostofAnakin]

 

Eh, up until Level 20, it doesn't really matter that much.  You can get by with weapons you just randomly pick up along the way.  Some of the guns/armor I had that wasn't blue was as good or better than the ones I had that were.  But after Level 20, you sort of need it to level up more as you need to find armor components with a "Light" score to raise your level up past 20.

 

The campaign/co-op reminds me a lot of Borderlands 2.  The MP reminds me of Halo.  So if you loved/hated those games, you'll love/hate Destiny.

Almost bought it today, checked reviews and one said that the story mode was short and repetitive. This put me off.

 

Is that an opinion you share?

 

Borderlands could easily be called repetitive, but definitely not short.

 

 

Couldn't really say yet.  I haven't finished the main story.  I got sidetracked doing bounties and strike missions.

 

Each planet has around 5 or 6 story missions that take anywhere from 30 minutes to an hour to finish.  Not sure how many total planets there are, as I've only "opened" three of them so far.  I know there's at least one more I haven't unlocked yet because I've seen bounties for it.  There's also co-op only missions on each planet, which also sort of flesh out the story.

 

If I had to guess, I'd say it's not as long as Borderlands.  But it seems longer than your typical FPS single player campaign.

[Nordicus]

The problem with these kinds of plots, is that they're never player-driven, but rather obviously-stupid-protagonist-driven.

Yes, and this is how Spec Ops: The Line chooses to criticize these games. Mold it as close to these games as possible, with same elements and tropes, then sooner or later turn it upside-down or stretch it to extremes to show how bad the trope is.

 

Like I said before, I wouldn't have done all the horrible things to begin with, because it's obvious from the very basic tone of the game that this isn't, y'know, your normal military action shooter.

Well good job if you saw through the facade of it being a regular modern war shooter, because the Spec Ops was absolutely trying to fool people at the beginning, and in these linear plot-driven games, you will do these horrible things. You've done it before in one of the many action games you've played, either with consequences ignored or your dumb protagonist congratulated, but you have done it, without realizing at times, and will do it again here.

 

Because if you make it freaking clear to the player that hey, let's look at this from a real world perspective and realize it's horrible, so please don't do it...you know what? The player has a tendency not to do those horrible things and instead try to work around them as best as they can

Players have a strong tendency to go for the "moral" option when it's presented. That's not what the game is arguing. It's arguing that when there's no choice and the game is linear, people tend to not question the game's orders because they're doing the perceived amoral act of progressing towards their goal.

 

That one subtle decision you do with Addams near the end of the game? The game, and I, argue that players would be lot less likely to end it in bloodshed if the options had been laid out visibly for the player. A lot of players just shoot because they don't think about it thoroughly. People are generally less likely to question the morality of their actions if no moral dilemma is explicitly presented.

 

There's never any choice in the game - it's, "protagonist tells you to do horrible thing after horrible thing that are obviously horrible things that you're gonna be yelled at later for, so you do it because you have literally no other choice to progress the game, and then the game gets mad at you". It's predictable, it's boring, it's preachy, and it's, quite honestly, a little pathetic.

"Predictable", really? Because I haven't seen a game rake you over the coals so much for something you did in gameplay segments of a linear narrative.

 

This is so painfully obvious pretty soon into the game. A good game it does not make, however. There were so many other ways to do what the game was trying to do, but it took one of the worst options to try to do so - a completely one dimensional, railroaded, linear third person corridor shooter. You know what they could've done for that white phosphorous scene? Make a save right before the "decision" to use it, and let the player *decide* what they want to try and do - use it, or don't. The game is supposed to be more realistic than most other military shooters, right? So have the militants completely overwhelm the player each and every time they try to fight the camp head on...or let the player try and sneak through, but allow for there to be no actual passage to get through so the player always gets caught and butchered. Something along those lines so that the player organically *wants* to try and use the white phosphorous - preferably without really thinking about it beyond "I'm frustrated and this seems like an easy way out" - and isn't just railroaded into using it. At THAT point, the game is justified in showing, "holy crap, look at what you just did!".

 

An important part of making that work, though, is making sure the game doesn't look like it's obviously rigged in the game's favor for the other options, but rather, just simply too hard for the player to pull off realistically. That can be tough, but at least I'd understand if they failed on that part.

I feel like I would largely be repeating my previous points here, so I'll just concentrate on the white phosphorous scenario and why giving it a bigger false alternative than it already has would be a mistake.

 

Now, from the mortar spot, you can still choose to shoot at the soldiers down below, but they respawn infinitely, and there's nowhere to advance to. If we were to make it a more convincing shooter/stealth section where the player is supposed to die.

 

With this section now included thanks to Bartimaeus, the player who is aware of their 2 options, will either go for the mortar, or try the other section a few times and give up. Inevitably when the player finishes the camp with white phosphorous, they are extremely likely to reload the game because they didn't like the results, because they will think of this as implicit failstate. They will try that sure-death route again, and again, and again before giving up and ending up just as mad as you did, but with more minutes, if not hours, wasted in an unbeatable section.

Edited September 24, 2014 by Nordicus

[melkathi]

Just did a pacifist game of Age of Wonders 3. Only explored dungeons etc, cleared independent critters in my domain and allied with all AIs. Everybody lived... well, except for those monster dens and bandit camps.

[nipsen]

Players have a strong tendency to go for the "moral" option when it's presented. That's not what the game is arguing. It's arguing that when there's no choice and the game is linear, people tend to not question the game's orders because they're doing the perceived amoral act of progressing towards their goal.

*bows* That, Nordicus, was a very good piece of writing.

[Tale]

You've done it before in one of the many action games you've played, either with consequences ignored or your dumb protagonist congratulated, but you have done it, without realizing at times, and will do it again here.

Here's where I think the core of disagreement comes from.

 

People who like those dumb action games aren't the type to appreciate what Spec Ops is trying to say. And people who are the type to appreciate it aren't going to be fooled.

 

I wasn't fooled, but I appreciated it. To see what it had to say along those lines is the only reason I played it.

 

Making the transition is a sticking point for some people. I have a personal rule that I think others share on less conscious levels. "Don't force me to do something I don't want unless you're going to pay it off later." Some people don't see the torment of the character as a payoff, or they feel like they're being criticized as the player. And thus it fails. There's a requisite detachment to appreciation.

[BruceVC]

 

Like I said before, I wouldn't have done all the horrible things to begin with, because it's obvious from the very basic tone of the game that this isn't, y'know, your normal military action shooter.

Well good job if you saw through the facade of it being a regular modern war shooter, because the Spec Ops was absolutely trying to fool people at the beginning, and in these linear plot-driven games, you will do these horrible things. You've done it before in one of the many action games you've played, either with consequences ignored or your dumb protagonist congratulated, but you have done it, without realizing at times, and will do it again here.

 

 

I was completely fooled, I thought it was just a normal shooter that presented you with some harsh choices. But I also was always  comfortable with my choices after I took the time to reflect on them

[melkathi]

I always felt that Spec Ops was trying to be to military shooters what Apocalypse Now was to war movies.

[Nonek]

Playing Freedom Force versus the Third Reich, fun, colourful and packed full of interesting features...but something about it simply refuses to click. I wonder if I should have played the original title, can you ladies and gentlemen recommend it at all?

[GhostofAnakin]

Still playing Destiny.  Found my first epic? (yellow) armor piece, a helmet.  And I finally made enough Guardian marks to buy a purple chest plate.  So my character finally has two decent pieces of armor.

[Majek]

 

Almost bought it today, checked reviews and one said that the story mode was short and repetitive. This put me off.

 

Is that an opinion you share?

 

Borderlands could easily be called repetitive, but definitely not short.

 

Yes plenty of repetition, but i still play it and play it and play it and play it. :S It bothers a little, but the next day ,if you have time, you're there again shooting enemies. And weeks pass.

 

Or not and you hate yourself for buying this after you're done with story mode, because PVP kicks your ass and coop is too repetitive for your liking, bounties repeat to often and you never get the gun you want.

 

Then again you weren't on the hype train so you couldn't be as disappointed.

 

[Guest Slinky]

Yahtzee's opinion on Destiny

[Tale]

Disappointment always struck me as irrelevant. Still, I'm a big fan of Halo campaigns and that's why I'm even looking at Destiny. I consider their PvP to be terrible.

 

Edit: Super Mod-power edit 3 hours later.

 

I'm still playing Throne of Bhaal, still going through Watcher's Keep. Defeated the Demilich and Dragon, both took a handful of tries.

 

Lum the Mad... Before today I never knew how badly I wanted to be a reference in a video game. Hint hint everyone out there.

[Majek]

I forgot to say how the best part of destiny is doing anything with friends with mics. Even better if drunk. 

[GhostofAnakin]

I forgot to say how the best part of destiny is doing anything with friends with mics. Even better if drunk. 

 

I'm actually the opposite.  At least when I'm playing through the single player campaign.  Running with 3 party members usually results in them speed running it, so I miss half the stuff that happens on the level.

[AGX-17]

- Trying out Skyrim and not really getting what the fuss is about.

As with all Bethesda games, it's at its best when you're new to the game, just wandering around the landscape and discovering new sights, phenomena, etc., while it's at its worst when Bethesda's "writers" try to "write" "stories" and "characters" intended to be "interesting," "compelling," "deep" or such terms which denote some minute degree of value to the human brain in a narrative.

 

I think I've said it before, but Bethesda's strong suit is level/"world" design and atmosphere; when it comes to actual depth of narrative and gameplay they falter or just fall flat on their figurative faces. i.e. They did an overall great job designing the "world" of Fallout 3, but mostly failed as far as populating it with decent stories and/or characters.

 

If exploratin' an open world isn't your thing, then Bethesda should just be crossed off your list of developers whose games you're going to play.

Edited September 25, 2014 by AGX-17

[AlperTheCaglar]

 

- Trying out Skyrim and not really getting what the fuss is about.

As with all Bethesda games, it's at its best when you're new to the game, just wandering around the landscape and discovering new sights, phenomena, etc., while it's at its worst when Bethesda's "writers" try to "write" "stories" and "characters" intended to be "interesting," "compelling," "deep" or such terms which denote some minute degree of value to the human brain in a narrative.

 

I think I've said it before, but Bethesda's strong suit is level/"world" design and atmosphere; when it comes to actual depth of narrative and gameplay they falter or just fall flat on their figurative faces. i.e. They did an overall great job designing the "world" of Fallout 3, but mostly failed as far as populating it with decent stories and/or characters.

 

If exploratin' an open world isn't your thing, then Bethesda should just be crossed off your list of developers whose games you're going to play.

 

This is so true.

 

Bethesda, while murdering Fallout 3's story (and ironically succeeding with the first person transition somewhat), does make the raw visuals and physical exploration of the gameworld be incredibly satisfying.

 

Morrowind was the high point of their storytelling in that given setting, and I'm always willing to give their games an enthusiastic chance on the merit of that game alone.

 

Skyrim was a step in the right direction, I'm sure they were inspired by the fan backing New Vegas' faction-dominant storyline received. 

[HoonDing]

Daggerfall had best story and had 6 major factions to boot.

Edited September 25, 2014 by HoonDing

[Majek]

 

I'm actually the opposite.  At least when I'm playing through the single player campaign.  Running with 3 party members usually results in them speed running it, so I miss half the stuff that happens on the level.

 

That's actually true for first time playing the story, unless all 3 are new to that or those mission(s) and want to take it slow.

[Rosbjerg]

Bethesda, while murdering Fallout 3's story (and ironically succeeding with the first person transition somewhat), does make the raw visuals and physical exploration of the gameworld be incredibly satisfying.

 

Morrowind was the high point of their storytelling in that given setting, and I'm always willing to give their games an enthusiastic chance on the merit of that game alone.

 

Skyrim was a step in the right direction, I'm sure they were inspired by the fan backing New Vegas' faction-dominant storyline received. 

 

 

Which is why many people would love to see more cooperation between Obsidian and Bethesda - both struggle with what the other is great at.

[Humanoid]

They'd need to partner with a third company to do the QA though.