Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
RANDOM VIDEO GAME NEWS - 'NON-FAKE-NEWS EDITION'
Posted 10 January 2018 - 03:35 PM
Quest markers I believe they are called?
Posted 10 January 2018 - 03:43 PM
"From my PoV, he says a lot of stuff, why I still prefer to play older over newer games. with the exceptions of few Indy gems. It's not nostalgia, the older games just forced you to use your brain more often. And the feeling which you got, when you did overcome some riddle or hard quest or boss, was much more rewarding than in today's openworld checkbox simulators with cutscenes."
games always sucked, difference is in the 80s and 90s there wasn't youtube
Back then the games cost the same as—or more than they do today... but back then they could only justify the price on their gameplay, humor, and story elements. These days, there are developers that make interactive paintings, and call them games. Even Todd Howard has openly admitted that they make games to entertain (coddle) the player rather than challenge them. Older games presented (and still present) challenge; and were not afraid of petulant players.
I've found shockingly few games in the last decade that hold my interest; The Witcher (1) is one of them. Toribash is one of them; magic sands (Java game) is one of them. The Disciples & King's Bounty series both held my interest a lot longer than I expected. Grim Fandango. Die By The Sword, Machinarium; (too short though). The FO3 GECK—but not the FO3 game.
I have Witcher 2 & 3 installed; both day one purchases. I am finishing the Dark Queen of Krynn series for the first time. I've never played Witcher 3—but for part of the tutorial; that was enough. I'd play Blood over F.E.A.R. any day; all week long, if it was pick one or the other; and they are made by the same studio. I played Dead Space for about 22 minutes; I haven't played it since. It was boring. Grimrock 1 & 2, I liked. The Superhot demo, I liked; I'd be playing FO3 if FO3 had combat like Superhot.
Edit: (after Mamoulian War)
I liked Rune a lot, but Skyrim not so much at all; except for them hiring Max von Sydow.
I'd have loved Skyrim —if it had had the combat* and level design aesthetics of Rune; they seem to have copied in ways that just didn't matter to it; leaving the important stuff out...
*A point to mention about Rune's combat: Rune is not an RPG, it's a third person stabber/platformer almost akin to Golden Axe.
I would want to have combat be more skill based than twitch based, in an RPG.
Edited by Gizmo, 10 January 2018 - 05:28 PM.
- Mamoulian War, Azdeus and Chilloutman like this
Posted 10 January 2018 - 10:32 PM
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users