What are you playing right now

[sorophx]

after the fiasco that was attemting to play Divinity Original Sin and Blackguards I decided I needed a different kind of RPG. Mount & Blade caught my eye. Installed it, tried it, and all I can say - it's very addictive. Such a simple concept, but riding around with my band of misfits killing bandits and sticking it to lords is really fun.

 

the best thing about this game is its combat. it's very simple yet elegant: as with many other games you have two buttons: attack and defend, but unlike many similar games M&B actually manages to be smart about it. when you block, you character anticipates where the blow will come from based on the enemy's movements at the time of blocking for example, if the enemy is swinging left, your character with block right. this opens up a whole game in itself: depending on the attack speed (determined by the size of the weapon and the character's skill with this weapon) you can force your enemy to defend one side and quickly attempt to strike where he's most vulnerable. 

 

this also keeps the combat challenging no matter how many fights you've been through. ]attacks can be delayed, which can and will catch you off guard (I've been cut down more than once when I would prematurely transition from my block to an attack exposing myself to a delayed attack by the enemy, who'd swing his sword but wait for a split second forcing me to make a mistake).

 

I don't understand why more games can't come up with stuff like this. make 8 animations: 4 for attacking and 4 for blocking and let the game do the rest. compared to the abomination that is combat in The Witcher 3 this simple system looks revolutionary. no stupid lock-ons, no unblockable attacks.

 

I do have a few gripes with M&B's combat, though. first, there's no sprint in the game, so when you're dismounted on the battlefield you're slowly walking from engagement to engagement. this also means that you can't close/create distance between yourself and your target to try and take the initiative (when you're facing several opponents, for example; if they all are moving towards you, only options available to you are: stand still and wait for them or slowly move towards them).

 

second, shields. shields are used mostly to deflect arrows (because you don't need shields to block or parry regular attacks - this is something that could be improved: in Warband you can't use both your sword and shield to block attacks from two sides, for example). but when you're blocking with a shield the magic is suddenly gone because it's very hard to tell which side your character is actually defending, the visual cues are gone. you only know that you're blocking something.

 

which brings me to my actual subject: Gekokujo. 

 

this is a total conversion for Warband, that swaps the pseudo medieval Europe of the original game for 16th century Japan. the attention to detail is stunning, but the most important thing of it is: there are no shields.

 

this *is* how Warband should've been made to begin with. this combat system married with this particular setting feel just right. I mean, combat feels sublime. but a picture is worth a thousand words, so here you go, a small sample:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_cNGbF4r_w

[Fenixp]

which brings me to my actual subject: Gekokujo. 

Well, that's another month of my life down the drain.

[GhostofAnakin]

I went ahead and ordered the Witcher 3 complete edition.  I already had the base game, but hadn't bought the expansions yet.  Between the fact I like having the expansions on the disc and not saved to the harddrive, plus the fact my internet is making it difficult to even download crap, I figured why not.

[Lexx]

Started doing some Mad Max again. when it was released, it got overshadowed by MGS5 which i played for weeks without a break. So... now i got back to the wasteland and i really like the driving. Even the Batman combat isnt so bad. What I absolutely hate, hate, hate, hate, is the "open world" with it's 100% repetitive content. There are only so many camps I can clean and only so many scrotus symbols I can destroy before becoming madly bored. Who the hell thought that this is fun gameplay? It's exactly the kind of bs i loath in every other "open world" games and it makes me wish for this genre to die a painful death.

[Agiel]

Started doing some Mad Max again. when it was released, it got overshadowed by MGS5 which i played for weeks without a break. So... now i got back to the wasteland and i really like the driving. Even the Batman combat isnt so bad. What I absolutely hate, hate, hate, hate, is the "open world" with it's 100% repetitive content. There are only so many camps I can clean and only so many scrotus symbols I can destroy before becoming madly bored. Who the hell thought that this is fun gameplay? It's exactly the kind of bs i loath in every other "open world" games and it makes me wish for this genre to die a painful death.

 

Apart from MGSV, I thought the high watermark for open world, "see-that-mountain-you-can-go-there" games was New Vegas and ever since I've kind of been tapped out on that form of game. Even as beautiful as Skyrim in its time was my playtime for that paled in comparison to New Vegas and *gasp* Oblivion, to say nothing of the fact that I haven't touched Fallout 4 yet.

[Lexx]

Agreed.

 

I mean MGS5 also has its fair share of repetitive content, but the gameplay was crazy fun and the presentation well done, so I didn't mind it at all. But when it comes to Mad Max... graphics and driving etc = cool beans! The rest... meh. It feels like they made this huge deserty world and then went over it saying a camp here, here, here and here, some racing track goes here and let's fill up the holes with scrap "scavenging" and some Intel NPCs. Really lazy work.

Edited September 14, 2016 by Lexx

[Fenixp]

Mad Max? I still think the only reason it has such a positive rating on Steam is because there's nothing wrong with it in particular. Combat is good, driving is good, vehicular combat is fun, the game's pretty. You get collectibles and a bunch of activities... It's all by the numbers. It contains all of the things an Open World game is expected to contain these days. Recommended. I guess. There's no reason not to, right? Anyway, my recommendation would be to play it in small bursts when you feel like freeing another territory or just not playing it at all.

 

So weird to see a movie which had the balls to go completely against what modern blockbusters consider "safe" and then see a game made for the movie which does nothing but all of the safe decisions.

 

Apart from MGSV, I thought the high watermark for open world, "see-that-mountain-you-can-go-there" games was New Vegas and ever since I've kind of been tapped out on that form of game. Even as beautiful as Skyrim in its time was my playtime for that paled in comparison to New Vegas and *gasp* Oblivion, to say nothing of the fact that I haven't touched Fallout 4 yet.

Not a fan of open-world games, eh? I'd say the reason your favorite was New Vegas would probably be that the game wasn't really designed to be particularly open-world - it pretended, sure, but the beginning was mostly linear, taking the "long way" around a mountain, and when the open world actually managed to open itself, you usually had like half of it explored by being gently nudged in the right direction.

 

It was rather clever about it, really - most of the game it pretended to give you all of these options when you've only really had like 2 or 3 major places where the game would realistically allow you to go and a bunch more locations hanging at the end of the stick, telling you "Play me for a bit more and you'll be able to go over here too!"

[Lexx]

^ but thats how a good game works. It needs "gates" to unlock- be it monster you can only beat after getting stronger or solving a few tasks first. Games where you can go everywhere right from the beginning without any challenges (i call this "the American way") are a boring slog.

 

Just compare Gothic 1/2 with Oblivion. Both are open world titles. One is American, the other European. I am always loving how they differ from each other so hard.

[Fenixp]

It's how *a* game works at any rate. Gothic games are the reason why I dislike too strong use of gating as its world always felt so unnatural to me. Anyway, I strongly prefer Morrowind's and Skyrim's approach which are games I'd put on a pedestal of open world design (mandatory link to compass remover) - all the main roads are more or less safe. It makes sense, they would be. But the further you get from them and stick your head into unknown territory, the more dangerous it becomes. So while you can go everywhere right from the beginning, it's hardly without challenges - admittedly, I've had to up the difficulty slider so that the game would contain more of these challenging areas, but it works rather well and feels so much more natural.

 

That's not to say I don't like games which make clever use of gating, I loved New Vegas and think it hits the sweet spot between openness and gating that I don't mind the gated parts.

[Drowsy Emperor]

Imo the worlds in Gothic games were much better designed than any Elder Scrolls game but the rest of the game was usually much clunkier.

 

I still firmly belive that the type of open world Baldur's Gate 2 had was better designed than any ES type open world game because its full of unique content and not copy paste generic content

Edited September 14, 2016 by Drowsy Emperor

[Rosbjerg]

which brings me to my actual subject: Gekokujo. 

 

this is a total conversion for Warband, that swaps the pseudo medieval Europe of the original game for 16th century Japan. the attention to detail is stunning, but the most important thing of it is: there are no shields.

 

this *is* how Warband should've been made to begin with. this combat system married with this particular setting feel just right. I mean, combat feels sublime. but a picture is worth a thousand words, so here you go, a small sample:

 

I think I've played Gekokujo for ~200 hours haha - it's almost perfect as of 3.0+, except for the fact that waaay to many bandits have guns.

but agreed, it's how Warband was made to be played, that or as a Viking in a shieldwall- so when you're used to the combat and gameplay and want a harder challenge, try out Brytenwalda (or the official expansion Viking Conquest). Brutal fun.

[Gorgon]

 

 

I really wish I'd found the killswitch.  I'm not looking forward to the Marchenko confrontation.

I thought the fight was easy. Getting into the vents, one level up to the terminal. Befriend the turrets for a little distraction. Shoot down the flying robots with AP ammo. Then on top where the terminal is, is another vent- you can use it to quickly move "inside" and "outside" of the big hall, therefore making it so he can't reach you. Whenever he is confused and can't find you, shoot him with grenade launcher or AP ammo.

 

Got him down in 5 minutes or something.

 

 

Try fifteen seconds. Cloak, stun-gun, takedown. All the robits and turrets promptly blow up once he goes down.

 

Shotgun on auto fully upgraded 4 or 5 clips, less than 30 seconds. The stun effect of the shotgun kept him down.  

[Fenixp]

Imo the worlds in Gothic games were much better designed than any Elder Scrolls game

I think the important distinction to make is what you're looking for in a game world. If it's series of challenges to overcome in order to progress, then yes, Gothic games were far superior in that respect. As a virtual world tho, Elder Scrolls games just have no equal. Sure, there are still massive logical inconsistencies and sadly, Skyrim made some steps away from the concept, but they just make far more sense as an actual, living world as opposed to a level that you need to beat. (and yes, a lot of content is similar to each other - which sucks from game design perspective but again works well for world building. For instance, naturally, all burial sites are going to look very similar to each other.)

 

I still firmly belive that the type of open world Baldur's Gate 2 had was better designed than any ES type open world game because its full of unique content and not copy paste generic content

Isn't calling Baldur's Gate 2 an open world kinda stretching it? BG1, sure, I could see that, but 2?

[Chilloutman]

I think the important distinction to make is what you're looking for in a game world. If it's series of challenges to overcome in order to progress, then yes, Gothic games were far superior in that respect. As a virtual world tho, Elder Scrolls games just have no equal. Sure, there are still massive logical inconsistencies and sadly, Skyrim made some steps away from the concept, but they just make far more sense as an actual, living world as opposed to a level that you need to beat. (and yes, a lot of content is similar to each other - which sucks from game design perspective but again works well for world building. For instance, naturally, all burial sites are going to look very similar to each other.)

Strongly disagree, world in Gothic 1 make so much more sense than Skyrim or Oblivion

Edited September 14, 2016 by Chilloutman

[pmp10]

 

I think the important distinction to make is what you're looking for in a game world. If it's series of challenges to overcome in order to progress, then yes, Gothic games were far superior in that respect. As a virtual world tho, Elder Scrolls games just have no equal. Sure, there are still massive logical inconsistencies and sadly, Skyrim made some steps away from the concept, but they just make far more sense as an actual, living world as opposed to a level that you need to beat. (and yes, a lot of content is similar to each other - which sucks from game design perspective but again works well for world building. For instance, naturally, all burial sites are going to look very similar to each other.)

Strongly disagree, world in Gothic 1 make so much more sense than Skyrim or Oblivion

 

Was it any less of wildlife extermination game than later PB titles?

That and tripping over minor loot every other step didn't help Gothic believability.

[Chilloutman]

 

 

I think the important distinction to make is what you're looking for in a game world. If it's series of challenges to overcome in order to progress, then yes, Gothic games were far superior in that respect. As a virtual world tho, Elder Scrolls games just have no equal. Sure, there are still massive logical inconsistencies and sadly, Skyrim made some steps away from the concept, but they just make far more sense as an actual, living world as opposed to a level that you need to beat. (and yes, a lot of content is similar to each other - which sucks from game design perspective but again works well for world building. For instance, naturally, all burial sites are going to look very similar to each other.)

Strongly disagree, world in Gothic 1 make so much more sense than Skyrim or Oblivion

 

Was it any less of wildlife extermination game than later PB titles?

That and tripping over minor loot every other step didn't help Gothic believability.

 

I am not saying it doesnt have some issues, however overall, it was much more 'alive' and believable than whole 'continents' presented to us in latest Elders scroll games

Edited September 14, 2016 by Chilloutman

[Lexx]

There was no minor loot every other step in Gothic 1/2. If I remember right, Oblivion and Skyrim are the culprits here.

[Chilloutman]

There was no minor loot every other step in Gothic 1/2. If I remember right, Oblivion and Skyrim are the culprits here.

well there were some hidden stashes here and there, but I liked it very much

[Fenixp]

Strongly disagree, world in Gothic 1 make so much more sense than Skyrim or Oblivion

All in all, there's a reason why I didn't namely mention Oblivion :-P It goes further than just that tho. In Gothic games, world existed for the sole purpose of giving player stuff to do. Admittedly I played a lot more of Gothic 2 than I did of the original and yes, given the original's setting, a lot of what I'm about to say might not apply (I could never stomach the controls), still: The wildlife extermination game sounds as about the correct way to sum up my issues with it.

 

In Gothic games, the world is there, waiting for the player to exploit it. NPCs won't go out of their way to clear roads and allow for trade or just free movement of people living in the world. Everything is static and awaits for the player to deal with it, one way or another. In Elder Scrolls games, up from Morrowind (and since Oblivion there are even patrolling guards), guards have a tendency of actively attacking dangerous wildlife and dangerous wildlife does the same to other actors roaming the world than just the player. And not just that - they also interact with each other. Sure, it's a simple AI script assigning factions to actors, but what it ends up looking like is NPCs trying to clear territory in order for merchants to get trough, it looks like animals are fighting for territory or just hunting. Even their placement is essential, like Kwama worms only defending kwama colonies and not being found anywhere else (even tho Morrowind was definitely a lot more rudimentary in these aspects.) And without freedom of movement between major cities and colonies, this illusion would fall apart.

 

There's a ton more to it than that, fact that there aren't random roadside chests with loot is a part of it indeed, even that Elder Scrolls games are notorious for letting player pick up whatever the heck he wants to and often having NPCs manipulate these same objects. There's lore and generally writing reinforcing worldbuilding. There are quests which do so much to make the world feel like an actual place full of people with motivations (well... Okay, this mostly applies to Morrowind, but Morrowind was pretty damn brilliant at doing this.) And... ... Just stop it, brain! I'm terrible at constructing concise arguments.

 

TLDR: I really like Elder Scrolls. Sue me! Seriously, I have many words I can say on the subject and nobody's going to have time to really refute my arguments or even read them all so it's rather pointless to write more walls, but at the end of the day neither Gothic's nor Morrowind's approach is really superior - they're just ... Very different at attempting to achieve the same goal.

Edited September 14, 2016 by Fenixp

[Lexx]

 

There was no minor loot every other step in Gothic 1/2. If I remember right, Oblivion and Skyrim are the culprits here.

well there were some hidden stashes here and there, but I liked it very much

But that's hardly the same as "loot every other step" :>

 

Really, Oblivion and especially skyrim I'll remember very well here: so many containers everywhere and all of them got a gold coin or other random junk nobody needs. Fallout 3 does the same, and so even New Vegas in big parts. Basically it's a typical Bethesda thing.

 

tl;dr - In Gothic you feel rewarded when you find something. In Skyrim it's just another coin.

 

/edit: from open world to loot distribution. Does anyone remember the horrible loot in Mass Effect 1? God damn that was bad. Switching your main weapon every half an hour with a different color that had slightly better stats. That was so not rewarding in the end.

Edited September 14, 2016 by Lexx

[Fenixp]

tl;dr - In Gothic you feel rewarded when you find something. In Skyrim it's just another coin.

Yup, that actually serves rather nicely to illustrate my point - in most games, containers with lootable items and lootable items placed around the world exist solely for the player to take them. That's the whole point of them existing. In Elder Scrolls games, they exist to sell you the idea of being in an actual world, where NPCs also have personal items and storage containers to store them, and player can interact with all of this.

[Tale]

 

 

There was no minor loot every other step in Gothic 1/2. If I remember right, Oblivion and Skyrim are the culprits here.

well there were some hidden stashes here and there, but I liked it very much

 

But that's hardly the same as "loot every other step" :>

 

Really, Oblivion and especially skyrim I'll remember very well here: so many containers everywhere and all of them got a gold coin or other random junk nobody needs. Fallout 3 does the same, and so even New Vegas in big parts. Basically it's a typical Bethesda thing.

 

tl;dr - In Gothic you feel rewarded when you find something. In Skyrim it's just another coin.

 

/edit: from open world to loot distribution. Does anyone remember the horrible loot in Mass Effect 1? God damn that was bad. Switching your main weapon every half an hour with a different color that had slightly better stats. That was so not rewarding in the end.

 

I'll always remember sneaking to the bottom of a tough dungeon in Oblivion to find a bunch of rusted hammers. Great reward.

 

Loot in Mass Effect 1 is probably the number 2 reason I hate that game after the Mako.

[213374U]

That's not to say I don't like games which make clever use of gating, I loved New Vegas and think it hits the sweet spot between openness and gating that I don't mind the gated parts.

 

DLCs are terrible in that regard, though. Encounters dropped on top of your head -literally, mobs spawning right in front of your eyes- for no reason. And player-leveled encounters at that, throwing the difficulty curve of the game out of whack. That single-handedly broke my enjoyment of New Vegas DLCs.

[Nonek]

 

Strongly disagree, world in Gothic 1 make so much more sense than Skyrim or Oblivion

 

 

Yes actually a game instead of a pointless larping aid.

 

I like the Witcher 3 as a well simulated world: Massive amounts of farm and grazing lands to support the population, as there should be in any land in that period. Realistically sized settlements rather than the half arsed couple of huts for a capital city that is so laughable and lazy. Wells regularly placed so that the population can drink, wash and launder, or the settlement built around a water source. Roads and tracks in realistic locales, verging from muddy ruts to paved highways. Ships and boats sitting in natural harbours, where fishermen nets and rods hang. Every locale seeming to have a reason for existing other than random placement, whether that be the orchards of White Orchard, the trading dominance of Novigrad throttling the Pontar or Oxenfurts strategic hold upon the Pontar crossings and scholarly focus, all economically viable. Inns and taverns being sited in sensible locales for passing trade. Settlements in dangerous areas actually having a stockade or some form of defense rather than just being open to anything wandering in. No Man's Land being a wild and monster haunted wilderness claimed by no nation in reality and left to grow wild while north of the Pontar the land is settled and monsters are rare, certainly not roaming freely in a comical manner, in remote places and usually all the more deadly.

 

Reminds me of the king of open world games Ultima VII, that pioneered such great well simulated worlds twenty plus years ago, they actually felt lived in with NPC schedules that made sense, homes where you could tell the occupant just by glancing around and cities where you could get lost in the world just moving around you.

Edited September 14, 2016 by Nonek

[Fenixp]

Yes actually a game instead of a pointless larping aid.

*sigh* As per usual, God forbid people like things you dislike.

 

Anyway, The Witcher 3 is an excellent example of fantastic visual design of an open world - not only placement of individual structures made sense, what really got me were walls of various huts and structures adorned by drawings or illustrations, it looked so ... Life-like.

 

And then the darn game went and ruined it by monster/enemy placement which made next to no sense and minimal interactions between factions or wildlife. For such a life-like world, seeing encounter placement so remote from anything close to life was just sad.

 

DLCs are terrible in that regard, though. Encounters dropped on top of your head -literally, mobs spawning right in front of your eyes- for no reason. And player-leveled encounters at that, throwing the difficulty curve of the game out of whack. That single-handedly broke my enjoyment of New Vegas DLCs.

I actually rather liked the one with the ... Umm ... Dead Money was it? Execution was a bit lacking, but concept and atmosphere was great. Otherwise yeah, the DLC was quite lacking. Edited September 14, 2016 by Fenixp