A group for the discussion of gaming community issues be they trends, a maniacal corporation, or simply thoughts about a game—preferably critical.
Pretty much any form of media beyond games is welcome subject-matter as well.
No articles were found matching the criteria specified. We suggest you try the article list with no filter applied, to browse all available. Post article and help us achieve our mission of showcasing the best content from all developers.
I need to figure out what the hell I should shove into this group and get the ball rolling...
I've never played Half Life before because it just seemed like another gore-based game with nothing else to it, but a lot of people seem to like. Should I play it?
Yeah, you really should, you should play Black Mesa, it's a HL1 remake and it's free, but unfortunately the devs haven't made the last level yet >_>
It's the only FPS I've played in the past year or two that hasn't treated me like I have down syndrome. So yes, play the damn thing already.
TES is overrated. It's only loved because of its lore, history and the modding support. Vanilla TES games are horrible. (I've only played since Morrowind so I'm judging from there) They all share the same traits in that they have clumsy disconnected combat, poor role-playing in terms of dialogue options and boring game worlds.
Morrowind was the worst. Were they trying to do some sort of D&D thing here? Thing was, Morrowind required you click for each hit as though they were trying to combine Diablo with D&D's roll dice system. The result was that combat was a pain in the ***.
Oblivion of course fixed that issue as every attacked connected but that didn't stop combat from being a dull painful process of attack,block,attack,block rinse and repeat. It didn't help that enemy AI was the same for every humanoid enemy.
Story? Morrowind was alright in these regards but Oblivion? The story was full of inconsistencies and generally was unrealistic. Only 10 soldiers show up for the battle you've gathered troops for. The same battle that is meant to decide the fate of the entire land and only 10 geezers bother to show up to help you. What? The whole experience is linear without any choices to make (same goes for Morrowind and Skyrim) and then we're treated to an anti-climax ending (same goes for Skyrim).
All three game worlds were boring. Empty (asides from copy and pasted ruins and caves) and generic.
The thing about Skyrim is its a sandbox & RPG, that's almost always a terrible environment for a 'main story.' Also as a sandbox its thousands of mods have an invaluable impact on the quality and volume of content. The combat is passable but with mods, again that can be changed or enhanced.
In general its great to explore, envision a your own character without always being drawn down a single corridor and one exit, and kill lots of people with a full set of badass Daedric armor or a skimpy 'murder all the things' armor mod that makes no sense.
At base it can be called an open world, random event generating, time sink. And ****, regardless I managed to enjoy 376 hours and plan to play again to get to the DLC.
If you don't like the idea of a sandbox rpg, simply don't waste your money on it. However, I'll be awaiting the next sandbox, random event generating time sink with anticipation. (before you compare: Witcher 3 is open world, Skyrim is sandbox and thus both have strengths though come on really the Witcher 2 was just plain ******* badass)
If I didn't like the idea of a sandbox RPG I wouldn't have played Mount and Blade & Warband for over 200 hours combined. The difference between the two titles is that Mount and Blade is enjoyable without the mods whereas TES isn't.
I mean gameplay wise I don't think anyone will praise Bethesda here. Meanwhile games like Red Dead Redemption have produced better open worlds (which also had random events and allowed you to tackle side quests and perform a host of other activities despite not even being an RPG). Not to mention RdR has one of the best stories in any single player game let alone open world. If Rock Star could produce an open world game with tons of side content and a good story then why couldn't Bethesda I ask?
I get the sandbox part but for a game boasting about choices and consequences there certainly aren't many. It's too casualized.
I think this video sums my points up nicely (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JweTAhyR4o0). It's long so be warned.
I mean give RdR character creation and what's stopping anyone calling it an RPG? It already has systems with more depth than Skyrim which is saying something for what is just an action-adventure open world title.
I can understand people liking these games but when you've played Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Fallout (not the Bethesda one) and Planescape you expect something more.
In comparison to recent RPG's such as Dragon Age: Origins, Dark Souls, The Witcher 2, Dragon's Dogma, Deus Ex: HR, Mass Effect, TES doesn't even enter the competition.
Dragon's Dogma (an open world action-RPG by Capcom) is so confident of itself that its rival is actually another Capcom game - Deep Down. Meanwhile we have Dragon Age: Inquisition and The Witcher 3 going open world.
So TES doesn't even have that going for it anymore. I just find the TES games so over-rated when they don't do the story, choices and combat right.
Deus Ex: Human Revolution does not actually qualify as an full RPG game, it is more like an stealthy shooter game based on the Deus Ex. Only the first Deus Ex game was a full RPG title.
Stealthy shooter? I didn't even use the stealth and there were enough choices, player dialogue and customization for it to qualify for an RPG. An action-RPG (which the first one was too).
What about Wizards Crown?
Loved that combat system - you could set a few parms and select "quick combat". Oh right, "recent"...
You are not logged in, your comment will be anonymous unless you join the community. Or sign in with your social account: