Discussion: Video Games

Dubiousity · Post by **Dubiousity** » Mon Oct 25, 2010 3:33 pm

Do you or do you not regret buying it?

MilesKingford · Post by **MilesKingford** » Mon Oct 25, 2010 3:38 pm

Senator_Sunburst wrote:Basically that's how it is. There's minor differences in for example Big Guns is no longer a skill, and Survival is, and there's some new enemies and stuff, but really it's just same old same old.

That's a shame, I thought it would be a bit more different than that.
But I am more excited about Fable 3 coming out on Friday, I can't wait, does anyone else play Fable?
Added: Sorry if I interrupted your conversation.

Senator_Sunburst · Post by **Senator_Sunburst** » Mon Oct 25, 2010 5:19 pm

Dub - Your question implies things that aren't true.

Also, I hate Fable. It's a franchise built on lies. And when those lies crumble, all that's left is a really underwhelming RPG. At least in my opinion.

Dubiousity · Post by **Dubiousity** » Mon Oct 25, 2010 5:49 pm

Well what I mean is, was it worth the money?

MilesKingford · Post by **MilesKingford** » Mon Oct 25, 2010 6:08 pm

Senator_Sunburst wrote:Dub - Your question implies things that aren't true.

Also, I hate Fable. It's a franchise built on lies. And when those lies crumble, all that's left is a really underwhelming RPG. At least in my opinion.

Well, I guess I would have to expect some wouldn't like it, but could you clarify what you mean?

Senator_Sunburst · Post by **Senator_Sunburst** » Mon Oct 25, 2010 10:07 pm

Dubiousity wrote:Well what I mean is, was it worth the money?

Then yes, the game was worth the amount of money I spent on it.

MilesKingford wrote: Well, I guess I would have to expect some wouldn't like it, but could you clarify what you mean?

What's there to clarify? It's nothing special. It has your basic RPG elements without much deviation from what is normally found in WRPG's. You have your quests, you can complete them on your own time, and you have your alignment, and the reaction from everybody to your alignment that NPC's have isn't impressive and doesn't differ radically from anything else, and alignment is just as wonky in Fable as it always is in WRPG's. What I mean by that is, I find it dumb that good acts balance out bad acts, and to maintain neutrality you just have to go around committing acts of monumental evil, and good, and somehow that makes you a neutral person rather than like say, insane.

Then there's actual gameplay, which is definitely nothing shocking. You level up, you get your stats up, and especially in the first Fable you just spam the same thing over and over and you win.

The only thing I particularly like about Fable is the overall stories. I like how time actually passes, and so does technology and the world. That's something that's unusual. But a good story doesn't stop the mediocre presentation, and I'm not a big enough fan of RPG's in general to go through a mediocre game.

Post by **Sleet** » Mon Oct 25, 2010 10:19 pm

I've always preferred JRPGs myself. They get stuck in their ways too, but at least they admit what they are.

Senator_Sunburst · Post by **Senator_Sunburst** » Mon Oct 25, 2010 10:24 pm

I think I can agree with that. JRPG's have their own problems and ways of doing things, but they usually don't constantly claim to be giant free-form sandbox games where everything is amazing all the time.

Post by **Sleet** » Mon Oct 25, 2010 10:48 pm

Exactly!

Take Final Fantasy XIII for instance (did I just open up a hot-button issue?). A lot of people complain about how it's just running down hallways killing stuff, leveling up and watching gorgeous cutscenes corresponding to events over which you have no control whatsoever. In other words, it's Final Fantasy. It understands that it's all standard JRPG elements, and it focuses on making those elements the best they can be, rather than pretending to be something else. So many of these WRPGs, on the other hand, act like they're so incredibly open-ended when in reality they just offer more sidequests and less railroading. Plus the options you're given rarely change the game more than adjust your morality score or whatever. Sometimes they offer neutral options, but even then it's oversimplifying things. Still, it's better than having to save a burning orphanage then murder all the orphans in order to be neutral.

Senator_Sunburst · Post by **Senator_Sunburst** » Mon Oct 25, 2010 11:03 pm

Yeah. In my opinion you can't claim to be an open ended game if your decisions don't actually impact the game. Every WRPG ever seems to claim that your actions will, but what they mean is a character will say Y instead of X when talking to you, or a character might leave, but that's not a real difference. The story didn't change. The best you might get is a slightly different ending, but that's not that amazing. Shadow the Hedgehog had something like six different endings. It better not be true that that game is a bastion for actual open-endedness in games.

Also I hate getting told that the world is a "living, breathing world." No it's not. You don't have real ecosystems or real economies, and your characters don't do much when the PC isn't interacting with them. In Oblivion NPC's aren't allowed to go to jail, and they never have enough gold to pay even the lowest of fines, so you end up with guards killing NPC's for stupid things. This really shouldn't have been a problem. Granted, it'd be difficult to get it right, but it's been a long time, I would have thought somebody (who isn't making a mod) would have gotten it right by now. I mean come on, Creatures 2 was released in 1996 and that had a pretty decent ecosystem. Plants grew, made fruit, made seeds, and then died, all according to soil nutrient values. All those WRPG's with their "living breathing worlds" have fixed plants that simply respawn the pick-able items.

/endrant.

Buckdida · Post by **Buckdida** » Mon Oct 25, 2010 11:08 pm

Senator_Sunburst wrote:Yeah. In my opinion you can't claim to be an open ended game if your decisions don't actually impact the game. Every WRPG ever seems to claim that your actions will, but what they mean is a character will say Y instead of X when talking to you, or a character might leave, but that's not a real difference. The story didn't change. The best you might get is a slightly different ending, but that's not that amazing. Shadow the Hedgehog had something like six different endings. It better not be true that that game is a bastion for actual open-endedness in games.

Also I hate getting told that the world is a "living, breathing world." No it's not. You don't have real ecosystems or real economies, and your characters don't do much when the PC isn't interacting with them. In Oblivion NPC's aren't allowed to go to jail, and they never have enough gold to pay even the lowest of fines, so you end up with guards killing NPC's for stupid things. This really shouldn't have been a problem. Granted, it'd be difficult to get it right, but it's been a long time, I would have thought somebody (who isn't making a mod) would have gotten it right by now. I mean come on, Creatures 2 was released in 1996 and that had a pretty decent ecosystem. Plants grew, made fruit, made seeds, and then died, all according to soil nutrient values. All those WRPG's with their "living breathing worlds" have fixed plants that simply respawn the pick-able items.

/endrant.

Quoting VG Cats: "Why make something great when something good sells just as well?"
Video games fall victim to marketing and profit just like any other product. I was disapointed by Smash Bros. Brawl and Halo 3 because...*ta-da* they didn't live up to their hype. This is why I haven't watched too many trailers or spoilers of Portal 2; I want the game to be awesome when I first pick it up and play it.

Blue Braixen · Post by **Blue Braixen** » Mon Oct 25, 2010 11:10 pm

Buckdida wrote:
Senator_Sunburst wrote:Yeah. In my opinion you can't claim to be an open ended game if your decisions don't actually impact the game. Every WRPG ever seems to claim that your actions will, but what they mean is a character will say Y instead of X when talking to you, or a character might leave, but that's not a real difference. The story didn't change. The best you might get is a slightly different ending, but that's not that amazing. Shadow the Hedgehog had something like six different endings. It better not be true that that game is a bastion for actual open-endedness in games.

Also I hate getting told that the world is a "living, breathing world." No it's not. You don't have real ecosystems or real economies, and your characters don't do much when the PC isn't interacting with them. In Oblivion NPC's aren't allowed to go to jail, and they never have enough gold to pay even the lowest of fines, so you end up with guards killing NPC's for stupid things. This really shouldn't have been a problem. Granted, it'd be difficult to get it right, but it's been a long time, I would have thought somebody (who isn't making a mod) would have gotten it right by now. I mean come on, Creatures 2 was released in 1996 and that had a pretty decent ecosystem. Plants grew, made fruit, made seeds, and then died, all according to soil nutrient values. All those WRPG's with their "living breathing worlds" have fixed plants that simply respawn the pick-able items.

/endrant.
Quoting VG Cats: "Why make something great when something good sells just as well?"
Video games fall victim to marketing and profit just like any other product. I was disapointed by Smash Bros. Brawl and Halo 3 because...*ta-da* they didn't live up to their hype. This is why I haven't watched too many trailers or spoilers of Portal 2; I want the game to be awesome when I first pick it up and play it.

That's why I don't watch movie trailers: they usually have the best scenes or jokes (if it's a comedy) in the trailer but not in the real thing. It annoys me.

Post by **Sleet** » Mon Oct 25, 2010 11:21 pm

It's impossible for a big title to be as good as the hype. So I listen to the hype, and even participate sometimes, but I try to keep my expectations realistic.

If I wanted to play a perfectly open-ended RPG, I'd play D&D. When I'm playing a video game RPG, I'm not trying to simulate a tabletop RPG without the stigma attached. I want to play a video game. Some open-endedness is fine, but it seems a lot of the time they add it at the expense of actual narrative strength.

Kyderra · Post by **Kyderra** » Mon Oct 25, 2010 11:49 pm

anything EA brings out: (game has release date for next holiday)
rental

anything Valve and Blizzard makes (it's ready when it's done)
buy

pretty much how I'm buying my games at the moment.

Ebly · Post by **Ebly** » Tue Oct 26, 2010 4:53 am

I'm speaking in the context of role-playing games only here, not in terms of all video games - though in some parts the sentiment can be applied to all games.

I can't help it, for some reason. Whenever I want a perfectly open-ended RPG where I can quite feasibly be anyone I wanted to put across, I live.
If I want to be something that can not realistically exist, I express it in a creative form - writing, drawing, whatever. I invoke imagination.

I don't like the rules and regulations imposed by roleplaying games. If I play a roleplaying game, it's to explore the world they created or to bear witness to, and slightly participate in a story, not to roleplay.

I should further explain this: I do not want to forge a way entirely my own with a story basically dictated by myself. If I wanted to do that, I would forgo the restrictions of a game engine and just write a story myself. My main attraction to roleplaying is simply to search and to watch. To be the fly on the wall. To see what happens. If I am prompted, I will nudge, but I still have a very book-based attitude towards games. I prefer to sit back and be impressed. I am a lazy slob that wants everything set out for me.

But that's a lie: my attitude is simply that if I wanted to create something, I would. I am not going to give praise to someone for their story if they did not in fact write a story. The most difficult, and therefore the most impressive, thing a game maker can do is to have a story that is influenced by the character - not a story that is made by the player, but a world that will react to them. This is why I like, say, The Elder Scrolls but not Dwarf Fortress. This is why I like acting in reality, but not roleplaying on the internet. Games are about two things for me: exploration and what I would call 'playing', which in this context specifically refers to the traditional video game elements - press x to jump, y to fire, so on. I may hand over control of the story, but not control of my character. Well, to be fair, the characters still work purely within the bounds of the game . . .

MilesKingford · Post by **MilesKingford** » Tue Oct 26, 2010 5:25 am

Why not just enjoy a game for what it is rather than being disappointed its not as big and elaborate as you thought it would be, for a games producer to make what you are asking for would require advanced technology we do not have yet.
Besides you get everything that you are asking for in real life, why play it as a game on a console when real life is the greatest game you could ever play.

Dubiousity · Post by **Dubiousity** » Tue Oct 26, 2010 5:45 am

The only game I've really gotten caught up in the hype with over the past year is Halo : Reach, and it's lived up to expectations so far.

(Plus, being in the beta helped with that)

Senator_Sunburst · Post by **Senator_Sunburst** » Tue Oct 26, 2010 7:53 am

MilesKingford wrote:Why not just enjoy a game for what it is rather than being disappointed its not as big and elaborate as you thought it would be, for a games producer to make what you are asking for would require advanced technology we do not have yet.
Besides you get everything that you are asking for in real life, why play it as a game on a console when real life is the greatest game you could ever play.

1 - As has been said, I would be fine doing this if the companies themselves were honest about what the games were like.

2 - There's no problem with the technology. Half of what I want ends up being moded into a game anyway. OOO for Oblivion does almost all of it.

3 - This entire argument implies that games are all enjoyable, whatever they may be. You don't tell somebody who hates Superman 64 to "enjoy the game for what it is" and not be disappointed it isn't, you know, good.

4 - Real life does not have dragons. Real life does not have FTL space ships. Video games do.

5 - Video games are a part of real life.

zeroslash · Post by **zeroslash** » Tue Oct 26, 2010 8:43 am

RPGs in general are awful, in my opinion. JRPGs are too slow, mainly due to the whole turn-based battle system (although that system is fading away, thank goodness), and WRPGs focus so much on expansive worlds that they forget that they're just making a video game. I prefer action-adventure games since they don't pretend what they can't be.

I love video games, and I love how newer games can have great stories, but c'mon. If you're going to advertise a breathing world, make sure it's made of cells and not bits.

Also, I'd like more games to have alternate endings. Just saying.

Dubiousity · Post by **Dubiousity** » Tue Oct 26, 2010 10:46 am

I respectfully disagree, I find RPGs to be one of my favorite genres of games and I can sink hours into them.

TachyonWolf · Post by **TachyonWolf** » Tue Oct 26, 2010 10:59 am

I too enjoy a good RPG... although I do understand some of the complaints with them, I like them when you can go somewhere in a few minutes instead of days. Like RTS, RPGs, and FPSs( but ONLY if I can aim with a thing like the Wiimote or something like it, mouse and keyboard is ok, but not great) And BRALW AKA best game EVER

but oddly enough I can’t stand other fighter game O.o and this confuses me... and again I begin ranting

Dubiousity · Post by **Dubiousity** » Tue Oct 26, 2010 11:02 am

Out of all current RPGs my 2 favorites are Final Fantasy III DS and Borderlands.

TachyonWolf · Post by **TachyonWolf** » Tue Oct 26, 2010 11:07 am

Final Fantasy III I played that for a while it was good, but classes made me stop and forget about it before I got very far into it, like my chraters were still in the first few levels and I got to like 2 towns. That reminds me, as just a general for everyone question how many game that you remember liking have you not finished because you lost a save game or forgot about it, or something like that?

Dubiousity · Post by **Dubiousity** » Tue Oct 26, 2010 11:07 am

TachyonWolf wrote:Final Fantasy III I played that for a while it was good, but classes made me stop and forget about it before I got very far into it, like my chraters were still in the first few levels and I got to like 2 towns.

I love the class/job system in that game!

MilesKingford · Post by **MilesKingford** » Tue Oct 26, 2010 11:14 am

Dubiousity wrote:
TachyonWolf wrote:Final Fantasy III I played that for a while it was good, but classes made me stop and forget about it before I got very far into it, like my chraters were still in the first few levels and I got to like 2 towns.
I love the class/job system in that game!

I had that game once, I got to the point where you had to battle some rich guy to get the flying ship back but I couldn't defeat him.

Dubiousity · Post by **Dubiousity** » Tue Oct 26, 2010 11:15 am

MilesKingford wrote:
Dubiousity wrote:
TachyonWolf wrote:Final Fantasy III I played that for a while it was good, but classes made me stop and forget about it before I got very far into it, like my chraters were still in the first few levels and I got to like 2 towns.
I love the class/job system in that game!
I had that game once, I got to the point where you had to battle some rich guy to get the flying ship back but I couldn't defeat him.

That means you have to griiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiind!

Post by **Sleet** » Tue Oct 26, 2010 11:32 am

Final Fantasy VI
Tales of Symphonia
Fire Emblem 7
Every Pokémon ever.

The best RPGs. And by "the best" I mean "my favorite," since I'm not arrogant enough to think my opinions are universal.

Also, Final Fantasy Tactics Advance and A2 do the classes better. Final Fantasy Tactics might also, but I've never played it so I can't say for sure.

Dubiousity · Post by **Dubiousity** » Tue Oct 26, 2010 11:52 am

Fire Emblem is win, but I see that as more of a strategy than an RPG.

Post by **Sleet** » Tue Oct 26, 2010 12:21 pm

It's both!

Actually add Paper Mario to that list. I can't believe I forgot it.

Dubiousity · Post by **Dubiousity** » Tue Oct 26, 2010 12:23 pm

Thanks Sleet, not I wanna ply FE but I don't have it!

TachyonWolf · Post by **TachyonWolf** » Tue Oct 26, 2010 1:13 pm

No Sleet when you say Tales of Symphonia and Fire Emblem you really do mean the best RPGs ever

I loved those games

Dubiousity · Post by **Dubiousity** » Tue Oct 26, 2010 1:17 pm

I still have yet to play a Tales game ;_;

Sketcherofstuff · Post by **Sketcherofstuff** » Tue Oct 26, 2010 2:13 pm

Call of duty 5 World at War BETTER than Call of Duty 6 Modern Warfare 2?

Anyone agree?

(Really looking forward to Call of Duty 7 Black ops because it looks like a combination of 5 and 6 which would be ideal. Each had some stuff missing that the other one had, mainly NAZI ZOMBIES!!!)

Dubiousity · Post by **Dubiousity** » Tue Oct 26, 2010 2:58 pm

Zombies indeed

Post by **Sleet** » Tue Oct 26, 2010 4:22 pm

Dubiousity wrote:I still have yet to play a Tales game ;_;

If you own a Gamecube or a Wii Tales of Symphonia is a great place to start because it's probably pretty cheap now and it's at least 60 solid hours of gameplay. Heck, even if you don't you can probably manage to get an old Gamecube and a copy of the game for about the price of a new game.

Senator_Sunburst · Post by **Senator_Sunburst** » Tue Oct 26, 2010 4:37 pm

Sketcherofstuff wrote:Call of duty 5 World at War BETTER than Call of Duty 6 Modern Warfare 2?

What is with this terrible numbering?! Call of Duty 6 Modern Warfare 2? What is that?!

Post by **Sleet** » Tue Oct 26, 2010 4:40 pm

Call of Duty uses weird numbering. He's calling it that because World at War came after Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, and then Modern Warfare 2 came out after World at War. They've stopped the numbering, so I'd just call them "World at War" and "Modern Warfare 2."

Also, no way. The Modern Warfare games are the best Call of Duty games. The others are boring. Heck, I don't even like Modern Warfare that much, but at least they're not yet another game about World War II.

Dubiousity · Post by **Dubiousity** » Tue Oct 26, 2010 4:44 pm

Well, I could also get Vesperia...

IF I HAD MONEY THAT IS

Post by **Sleet** » Tue Oct 26, 2010 4:48 pm

But not for much less than a Gamecube and Symphonia! And from what I've heard Vesperia, while good, is no Symphonia.

Dubiousity · Post by **Dubiousity** » Tue Oct 26, 2010 4:48 pm

Sleet wrote:But not for much less than a Gamecube and Symphonia! And from what I've heard Vesperia, while good, is no Symphonia.

And from what I've heard, Symphonia is severely overhyped!