What are you playing right now

[Fenixp]

Well the reason I mentioned the two was that Dragon's Dogma tramples Dragon Age in combat, world design and exploration departments whereas Witcher 3 destroys it in storytelling. If you're the kind of player that primarily looks for either of the two, I think you're quite likely to prefer them to DA: I - and I'd say majority of players do play RPGs either primarily for story or primarily for combat and character development. You could argue that Dragon Age: Inquisition is a good middle ground, but my experience was that it did neither of these aspects very well + screwed up other things all by its own.

 

That's not to say DA: I is a bad game per se and I'm sure some players will find things to like so much that they'll prefer it to the two I mentioned, but in my eyes, DA: I was made pretty much obsolete within a year of release. If it focused more on the story I might have finished it purely to wrap up the trilogy, it... Didn't really tho, so ... Eh.

[melkathi]

I looked at my desktop yesterday and noticed the shortcut for DA:I. Nearly played a bit. Then decided to just go to bed early for a change and slept for 11 hours. I needed that

Saw a cool hoover in my dream, shaped like Bub/Bob from Bubble Bobble. I'll have to look into making that. The internet would love it.

[Mamoulian War]

The big advantage of TW3 is that it has a pre-defined character which you will be playing, so it is easier to make quests related to this character, in DAI you can have such varied backgrounds that going too deep is simply not possible.

You do not need to go very deep to achieve fun questing... anything deeper than shallow MMO type questing is ok. That pest has to go. I love how everybody jumps on JRPG hate train, but WRPG is more and more turning into mindless "bring me 10 rat pelts in thousands of variations" in sterile open world environment...

 

/rant_end

[Blarghagh]

Eh, even the MMO type questing can be okay if used sparingly and with a decently challenging objective - i.e. not bring me 10 wolf paws from the local wolves but my quest potions required 10 Troll Hearts from deep in the dark forest where you'll have trouble surviving. It's just that most of the time it's busywork.

 

"There's a weed that grows around my house that I could pick out myself if I just did my job," said the farmer. "Please tear 20 of them out!"

 

"Go **** yourself," said the hero. "I have a kingdom to save!"

[Majek]

 

How many missions are there in Shadow Tactics?

At least 10.  I just finished the 9th, which, at first, was set up like it would be the final mission.  I suspected otherwise and was correct as there was a PLOT TWIST!  Mission 9 was ruthlessly difficult and I now have developed an intense hatred of chickens.  Also, these missions would be a bit easier if I hadn't made a promise to myself to kill no civilians.  They would still be difficult missions, but there are certain parts that would be made much easier if I just shed a bit of innocent blood.  I have to say I'm pretty proud of myself as I managed to kill 5 guards at the same time in the last mission using 3 characters simultaneously.  It took me many attempts to get the set up and timing just right to pull it off, but it was so damn satisfying when I finally made it work. 

 

I googled and there's actually 13 of them.

[the_dog_days]

I liked DAI, though I didn't love it. Similarly to Fallout 4, the game has a bunch of tiny gameplay design choices that I found annoying. The wartable is something I particularly dislike as it is the sole source of all the backtracking. (Backtracking is a game mechanic that BioWare fell in love with starting with DA2, and featured heavily in DAI and ME3.)

Edited January 3, 2017 by the_dog_days

[Fenixp]

Finished Battlefield 1's campaign. Still among the best modern military shooter campaigns (yes, it's weird that a game from WW1 would belong to that lineup, eh?), but overall, there were two campaigns which were rather great, two which were merely pretty good and one which was distinctly meh. A lot better than what I expected nonetheless.

[marelooke]

The big advantage of TW3 is that it has a pre-defined character which you will be playing, so it is easier to make quests related to this character, in DAI you can have such varied backgrounds that going too deep is simply not possible.

 

Honestly there's only two real background choices that matter in DA:I: are you a Dalish or are you not (iirc Dalish was the only Elf option this time around, for the PC at least). If they'd cut the second path they could have done so much more with the lore without needing a "predefined character" in the sense The Witcher or DA2 had it. Or they could've made Solas a mandatory party member so he could provide the exposition, I guess.

 

Personally I'd greatly prefer the former even though I took Solas everywhere that smelled even remotely like Elves might have been involved anyway... (which is like...most of the game anyway)

[Vaeliorin]

Well the reason I mentioned the two was that Dragon's Dogma tramples Dragon Age in combat, world design and exploration departments whereas Witcher 3 destroys it in storytelling. If you're the kind of player that primarily looks for either of the two, I think you're quite likely to prefer them to DA: I - and I'd say majority of players do play RPGs either primarily for story or primarily for combat and character development. You could argue that Dragon Age: Inquisition is a good middle ground, but my experience was that it did neither of these aspects very well + screwed up other things all by its own.

 

That's not to say DA: I is a bad game per se and I'm sure some players will find things to like so much that they'll prefer it to the two I mentioned, but in my eyes, DA: I was made pretty much obsolete within a year of release. If it focused more on the story I might have finished it purely to wrap up the trilogy, it... Didn't really tho, so ... Eh.

I think comparing the combat between the two isn't really fair, given that they're (as far as I'm concerned) in different genres.  Dragon's Dogma combat gets compared against the likes of Dark Souls, and though Dragon's Dogma's combat is prettier, it's nowhere near as compelling as Dark Souls.  I also don't really like open worlds, so that type of exploring isn't really for me.  Dragon's Dogma also suffers because in order to optimize your character you can end up spending 200 levels playing as every class but the class you want to play, which is pretty terrible design.  Also, only 1 save...I don't know who thought that was a good idea, but it wasn't.

 

Honestly, it mostly just comes down to DA:I being closer to the type of game I enjoy (traditional western RPG, though preferably turn-based) than Dragon's Dogma, while having (as far as I was concerned) more interesting side stuff (or really, less super boring pointless side stuff) than Witcher 3.  If I was the type who could ignore all those unexplored points of interest, I'm sure I'd consider Witcher 3 the far superior game (despite having terrible combat), but I just really can't.

[Malcador]

Star Wars Rebellion. Shattered the Rebellion in one sector they didn't bother using diplomats on, turned the tide in my favour. Now begins the annoying "Hunt for Bin Laden"-esque phase of the game as I try to run Luke to ground and find the Rebel HQ.

[Katphood]

Playing Red Dead Revolver. It's the emulated PS4 version which you can buy from the PSN. While the controls are just as clunky as any PS2 third person shooter, the atmosphere and the setting is very unique and one of a kind. It's as if you are playing 'El Topo: The Video game'.

Edited January 4, 2017 by Katphood

[majestic]

Star Wars Rebellion. Shattered the Rebellion in one sector they didn't bother using diplomats on, turned the tide in my favour. Now begins the annoying "Hunt for Bin Laden"-esque phase of the game as I try to run Luke to ground and find the Rebel HQ.

 

Ever since it came out I tried - often and hard - to like Rebellion. The last time I tried was when it was released at GOG not too long ago. I... just can't get into it. There's something entirely off-putting in the game mechanics for me that I can't quite put my finger on, and this is coming from someone who actually enjoyed Master of Orion 3.

Edited January 4, 2017 by majestic

[Nonek]

Diablo, thought i'd have a goosey at the latest mods for the old classic, quite impressive really. It's a pity Blizzard couldn't make a real sequel to the game, they just don't seem to have the ability or desire to emulate that claustophobic, tense and horrific atmosphere anymore. Ah well Tristram endures.

[Bartimaeus]

...I thought Diablo 2 was a worthy successor. Different - less dark, more crazy and demonic instead - but worthy.

[Fenixp]

Diablo II is an entirely different game tho. The original, when played as designed at any rate (so no repeated starts of New Game with the same character) is a slow, rather methodic game where enemies are actual threat and resources are quite scarce. The game's focused on exploration, on finding right ways to approach combat and overcome difficulty, and only then is it about character development and finding ph4t l00t. It can be rather vicious, unrelenting and unforgiving experience. Whereas Diablo II... Well, we all know how Diablo II turned out. I enjoyed it at the time, but recently, I'm much more likely to replay the original as there's still nothing quite like it (that I know of anyway)

 

Edit: 'sides

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnMR6SOBa9k

Edited January 5, 2017 by Fenixp

[redneckdevil]

Grim Dawn to me is the real Diablo 3.

Btw has the new free stuff came out yet for Diablo 3?

[Oerwinde]

Got me an xbone on boxing day. Been switching between WWE 2k16 and Destiny on that (Destiny is free for some reason), and Tyranny on my PC. Loving Tyranny.

[Mamoulian War]

24 hours of LeMans in Gran Turismo 5. Just got over 10 hour mark in the race O.o

[MrBrown]

Grim Dawn to me is the real Diablo 3.

Btw has the new free stuff came out yet for Diablo 3?

Weeelll, there's the anniversary stuff going on, which is basically a Diablo1 like dungeon in D3.

 

It's probably not worth it, if you're not much into D3, though. I played it, but I never played D1 back in the day, so I can't say how cool the nostalgia might be for those that did.

[Fenixp]

I played it, but I never played D1 back in the day, so I can't say how cool the nostalgia might be for those that did.

They couldn't even get the town layout right...

[Nonek]

...I thought Diablo 2 was a worthy successor. Different - less dark, more crazy and demonic instead - but worthy.

 A good game but not what I would call a continuation of the first.

[Raithe]

I liked DAI, though I didn't love it. Similarly to Fallout 4, the game has a bunch of tiny gameplay design choices that I found annoying. The wartable is something I particularly dislike as it is the sole source of all the backtracking. (Backtracking is a game mechanic that BioWare fell in love with starting with DA2, and featured heavily in DAI and ME3.)

 

The backtracking was a pain, but more so because of loading times. The war table itself, I actually liked as a concept. A game mechanic to allow you to get more of a feel for the wide spread organisation of the Inquisition and its effects in the wider world. It wasn't executed that well, but as a concept it was a nice attempt. 

 

I know it would have been much harder to do, but it would have been nice to have seen more of an effect from those operations than just a few stat changes, a bit of extra loot and such. If there had been more sense of consequences to the game itself, that would have been more interesting.

[Fenixp]

Would be nice if you could send a bloody missive at least.

 

"Yos, Inquisitors, since you're a bunch of incompetent b****s and I have to do everything important around here, here's my orders I send via my trusted mule, as he's significantly more capable than you lot. My orders are as follow:

...

I'll now go and collect Elfroot, because when I tell you to do it, entire hunting party brings me 6 of 'em. Idiots."

Edited January 6, 2017 by Fenixp

[marelooke]

 

Well the reason I mentioned the two was that Dragon's Dogma tramples Dragon Age in combat, world design and exploration departments whereas Witcher 3 destroys it in storytelling. If you're the kind of player that primarily looks for either of the two, I think you're quite likely to prefer them to DA: I - and I'd say majority of players do play RPGs either primarily for story or primarily for combat and character development. You could argue that Dragon Age: Inquisition is a good middle ground, but my experience was that it did neither of these aspects very well + screwed up other things all by its own.

 

That's not to say DA: I is a bad game per se and I'm sure some players will find things to like so much that they'll prefer it to the two I mentioned, but in my eyes, DA: I was made pretty much obsolete within a year of release. If it focused more on the story I might have finished it purely to wrap up the trilogy, it... Didn't really tho, so ... Eh.

I think comparing the combat between the two isn't really fair, given that they're (as far as I'm concerned) in different genres.  Dragon's Dogma combat gets compared against the likes of Dark Souls, and though Dragon's Dogma's combat is prettier, it's nowhere near as compelling as Dark Souls.  I also don't really like open worlds, so that type of exploring isn't really for me.  Dragon's Dogma also suffers because in order to optimize your character you can end up spending 200 levels playing as every class but the class you want to play, which is pretty terrible design.  Also, only 1 save...I don't know who thought that was a good idea, but it wasn't.

 

Comparing Dragon's Dogma to Dark Souls never made much sense to me. I hated Dark Souls' combat (and consequently didn't get very far in it) as it felt blatantly sluggish and often plain unfair (which is the entire point, I imagine, not my cup of tea though) while I'm currently on my third playthrough of Dragon's Dogma. As a matter of fact the comparison to Dark Souls kept me away from Dragon's Dogma for the longest time.

 

The one save makes perfect sense given the story and the pawn mechanics (I'll admit to being annoyed at first, but now that I understand the reasoning I no longer care). Optimizing (as in: min-maxing) your character also isn't particularly important and unless you only play one of the classes until lvl100 (which is the breaking point, progression wise, the last 100 levels are far less important as they follow a different, and slower, stat progression pattern) you are likely to end up with fairly balanced stats and the gear easily makes up the difference.

 

Moreover having more balanced stats will allow you more flexibility in how you can play and to pick the class that deals easiest with whatever challenge you face rather than being "min-max locked" into one class, which might just have a hard time with the enemy you're trying to kill. For example: being able to switch to some form of ranged class for the Daemon fight is kinda...nice (or not being a Magick Archer when you know you'll be facing a magic immune enemy...). Can it be done with other classes? Of course, but it's going to be harder, min-maxing or no. Hell, I'd even argue that unless you really really only like one of the classes min-maxing for one class is overall a bad thing to do in DDDA.

 

Dragon's Dogma is, imho, less about min-maxing one specific class and more about making do with what you get thrown at you (eg. the pawns you manage to find as most of them aren't exactly "optimally min-maxed" even at high levels) and picking the right tools for the job (be they said pawns, or your own and your main pawns class and abilities).

 

Honestly, it mostly just comes down to DA:I being closer to the type of game I enjoy (traditional western RPG, though preferably turn-based) than Dragon's Dogma, while having (as far as I was concerned) more interesting side stuff (or really, less super boring pointless side stuff) than Witcher 3. If I was the type who could ignore all those unexplored points of interest, I'm sure I'd consider Witcher 3 the far superior game (despite having terrible combat), but I just really can't.

While I can agree that the amount of sidequests and markers in Witcher 3 was huge the side "content" in DA:I was on average far more boring and pointless.

[pmp10]

Hell, I'd even argue that unless you really really only like one of the classes min-maxing for one class is overall a bad thing to do in DDDA.

How so?

Given monsters elemental weaknesses magick archer is easily the best DPS class.

Especially in BI where pawns get perma-killed all the time.

That's why having to do 90 levels of sorcerer first is such a pain.