What game are you wasting time on?

[mangsy]

I fucking love those Paper Mario games.

 

[anus_pounder]

Modern Day Scenario for Hearts of Iron II, Algeria. Mostly using it as a way to test and try out some very basic text editing.

 

[Baddygoal]

I agree 100% with the above. I thought Doom 3, Quake 4, ETQW and Crysis 1 felt alright as well.

Yeah Doom 3 and Quake 4 both handled well, though I'd say that the overall feel of these games is definitely different to their earlier incarnations. Probably the movement speed and the pace of the game overall. I thought the first 1/3 of Q4 was meh and the second 1/3 really decent but I loved the last third of Q4.

Agreed on Crysis, I really enjoyed that game. More or less Far Cry in a new engine and with a slightly different plot.

I suppose generally games made by id, Raven, Valve and Monolith tend to get the shooting part right.

 

[Deleted member 7219]

I don't understand why id didn't make Quake 4 available on Steam. All their other games are up there. Are they that embarrassed about it?

 

[Sceptic]

"It's not their game" would be the reason, I think.

Raven developed, IIRC Activision distributed, id only licenced the engine.

Anyway, finished Conquest of Camelot late last night slash early this morning. Stupid fucking Sierra minigames made me rage a bit, but thankfully they're not that hard. The game has a lot of dead ends, some of them really unfair and annoying, and all in all isn't Sierra's best game, but it's fun and has an unusual feel thanks to the subject matter and the strange mixing of mythologies. I remember Conquest of the Longbow being better though, will find out soon.

 

[sea]

Beat the Dead Money DLC this past weekend. I was really impressed with it (I've never encountered a worthwhile DLC before). Looking forward to trying Honest Hearts at some point.

I just finished Dead Money as well. While the gameplay started to drag a bit near the end (I can only take so much cautionary/stealthy play in one sitting), I found the writing to be some of Chris Avellone's best in years, if not right up there with Planescape. While the characters themselves aren't the most memorable, the way that their pasts, backstories, personality quirks etc. all coalesce into legitimate arcs which tie into the overall plot in very substantial ways really left me impressed. What seemed like just idle banter near the beginning for Dean Domino, for instance, ended up being something that in actuality spoke to the heart of his character, and little things like Elijah looking down on Super Mutants due to his Brotherhood background really made them feel like part of a larger world, and more importantly, they made sense as individual human beings. The entire thing ends with a great sense of finality and closure, and the way it both ties into the rest of the Fallout lore and sets up some of the additional new stuff like the Big Empty left me seriously impressed.

I honestly can't believe Dead Money was lambasted by the mainstream press, even if it's not the most "lolz fun" experience, it's one which I found eminently meaningful and will likely stick with me for some time. That they were able to get such excellent results from a relatively short DLC, all while not sticking to the Fallout formula is something that I greatly admire.

On Honest Hearts: it's fun, but more because of its exploration side. The Burned Man is neat, but other than that the rest of it is kind of stock-standard, and the main story is actually rather short and uneventful. It's definitely well below Dead Money, but it's still worth a play if you want more exploration-style gameplay. And, for what it's worth, the letters left behind by the Survivalist character are probably the closest thing Fallout's ever got to being genuinely poignant and emotionally moving.

 

[spekkio]

 

[Admiral jimbob]

Been playing Bad Company 2 multiplayer quite a bit. It's a surprisingly fun game, but I found CoD4 MP fun for a week or two. Will see if it has any actual lasting value.

 

[Satori (original)]

Beyond Good and Evil
Operation Flashpoint
Chronicles of Riddick: Escape from Butcher Bay

Is Assault on Dark Athena worth playing thorugh?

 

[pipka]

Finally managed to run Hitman Codename 47 without speed problem on Win7 64. OpenGL plus MaxCPU work like a charm.
Will make my way through entire series.

 

[Ivar the Boner]

I have TERRIBLE hangover and I can't take my drugs because I probably still have some alcohol in blood. If I won't take them I will start to see and hear shit, If I mix them with alcohol I will go batshit and that's not an option because I'm at my parrents place right now.
So I'm going to spend the night playing M&M WoX being scared shitless.

 

[sea]

I finished up The Witcher II after putting it on the shelf for a little bit. Sadly I think I missed some of the endgame content, but I'm not sure if I could have even got it to begin with (didn't find a way into the sewers of Loc Muinne for instance). I really enjoyed it, but there's a few things I think could have been done better.

The first game did an excellent job of making you feel like you were embroiled in politics and their repercussions. You didn't just get people with vested interests talking to each other, you saw the effects of that in the final hours of the game. The Witcher II doesn't have that much of it by comparison - political machinations are great, but I felt somehow disconnected from all of them, like a bunch of events were occurring around me but I never got to see what the consequences were. The summit near the end was shorter than I would have liked (more characters with more dialogue would have been fun), but maybe that can change based on what I decide to do near the end. The lack of any sort of real epilogue also left me walking away from the game feeling... not confused, but maybe slightly underwhelmed by the gravity of what happened (that said, replacing it in part with dialogue did a decent job).

Also, chapter 3 is... very short. I know many have said that, but I wasn't prepared for quite how brief it was. I don't know if that's really a sore spot for me, because I already sort of realised that I was in the endgame by the time I even reached Loc Muinne, but I would have liked to get more involved with the political discussion, explored more of the wilderness outside the city, etc. I didn't feel let down by it, but going into it expecting another full-sized portion of the game, I can see why some would be disappointed.

I'm a little sad that some of the smaller choices you have don't have quite the same impact (mostly just different lines of dialogue), but I also understand that many of the bigger choices really do have large ramifications. That said, it seemed almost as if certain deaths of characters didn't have much story effect, but it makes me wonder if they really plan on salvaging it all for the inevitable sequel. There are, frankly, so many outcomes that it'd be pretty damn difficult to resolve all those choices in meaningful ways.

In any case, I'll definitely give it another play, maybe once another patch or an expansion/DLC comes out. I'm really curious to see what I missed in chapter 2 by siding with Roche, because there are a lot of things that seem very heavily dependent upon that and the endgame seems like it could play out fairly differently depending on that.

 

[Jaesun]

I had forgotten what it like to die over and over and over and over and over again in a game.

Motherfucking beholder creatures. Fucking assholes.

http://www.ragingmole.com/RTC/index.html

 

[dragonfk]

I don't have the time to play anything right now...and damn, I don't miss it at all.

 

[kingcomrade]

Been playing Bad Company 2 multiplayer quite a bit. It's a surprisingly fun game, but I found CoD4 MP fun for a week or two. Will see if it has any actual lasting value.

I have been wanting to try it out but that game just runs total shit on my computer and I have no idea why. I think I tried playing for about half an hour and got 0 kills.

 

[Hoodoo]

Is Assault on Dark Athena worth playing thorugh?

Its not as good as butcher bay, but ye, worth it.

 

[sea]

Played through FEAR and FEAR 2 over the last few days.

FEAR is a pretty good shooter with some excellent combat. Unlike most modern shooters, it's clearly been designed with the PC in mind, and as such success is based heavily on skill, mastering the weapons, and thinking tactically in combat. The AI of enemies, environment design and reliance on visual and audio cues ensures that while decent players might get through okay, on hard difficulty you must have a full grasp of the combat mechanics. Probably the last PC shooter (date-wise) I've played that features this sort of gameplay.

Meanwhile, FEAR has some excellent atmosphere that is nearly unmatched, mostly owing to its haunting, mostly ambient soundtrack. It's well paced, constantly keeping tension up by almost never telegraphing what's coming next. It's not shocking like most "scary" games, but rather induces a constant paranoia as you're never quite sure until the very end whether you're crazy, if the strange things you're seeing are real, and the plot and its details are left ambiguous enough that you can fill in the gaps as you go, never quite sure of who the characters are, what their motives are, etc. Level design does tend to get monotonous (it's all office buildings, labs and run-down alleys), but the game isn't long enough to reach the point where it truly starts to grate. There's a little bit of derp here and there in the story and characters (particularly the extremely obese and annoying server admin type guy you run into a few times), but overall it's a game that lets you figure things out for yourself and doesn't treat you like an idiot - and considering it's a horror game, this is a very good thing, as too much exposition and hand-holding would wreck much of its impact.

FEAR 2 changes all that. While it's a very technically and artistically competent game, it's interesting to observe just how much it's been changed up in the switch over to console development. The action is fast, but not tactical, challenging or particularly skill-based, likely to compensate for the decreased precision of a gamepad. The enemies you fight aren't stupid, but the design of encounters (popamole and set pieces) means that they usually funnel into areas in predictable manners, the stealthy approach isn't an option, and they die very fast ensuring you rarely see them do anything particularly intelligent, even though the AI itself is actually pretty good and probably better than the first game's. All this combines to create combat that's fun, and rather satisfying, but fluffy - you never get that sense of learning the weapons, of outsmarting enemies, of using the environment to your advantage. It's all instant gratification.

That idea of instant gratification seems to have carried into the rest of the game's design as well. While FEAR was for the most part 100% linear, it did a good job of providing multiple routes and giving you the illusion that you were navigating large, open buildings. FEAR 2 has almost none of these, and there are pretty much two types of environment - linear corridors and area-type areas. It's much more straightforwardly a shooter, rather than a horror game with shooting as a combat mechanic like the first. As far as plot goes, it explains far too much. One of the best things about the first game was how it left so much up to speculation, and it didn't need to be explained, because it was a story that appealed to the senses and emotions, not the rational mind. In FEAR 2, there are too many characters, too much exposition, and most importantly, too much plot. We get huge info dumps about the backstory, and pseduo-scientific explanations of all the phenomena seen - but because it's pseudoscience, it makes absolutely no fucking sense anyway, effectively cheapening rather than enhancing the lore (the whole "a magic trick's ruined when you show how it's done" thing). Nothing is left to the imagination, and when there is no longer anything left to imagine, there is no more horror.

Most damningly, FEAR 2 just isn't scary, or even very atmospheric - for many, many reasons. The biggest problem are all the extra NPCs who constantly chat in your ear - it's annoying, for the most part poorly written, and completely removes all suspense when you're supposed to be soaking in the atmosphere (the worst is Miguel and his constant spouting of bad one-liners). Second is the music - FEAR's soundtrack was mostly ambient, and many parts of the game featured no music at all. FEAR 2 features a largely bombastic Hollywood-type score, almost comically videogamey in places, with only a very few creepy tracks. Some might call it varied; I say it only reinforces the derpiness of the game. The last issue is that there's just no subtlety to any of it - in FEAR, we had no idea of Alma and Paxton's motives, whether they were friends or enemies, who they were, and the game was smart enough to avoid showing its hand. Same goes for the horror sequences themselves. In FEAR, you'd see strange things out of the corner of your eye, people simply standing in the distance, etc. and it constantly put you on edge, made you feel like you were being watched, toyed with. In the sequel? Endless jump "scares", overdone special effects, quick time events, and almost all of the psychedelic, creepy sequences are gone save for one or two parts of the game. Horror is all about atmosphere, tension, anticipation, not about throwing a bunch of fucking crap at the audience.

So yeah, overall, FEAR is great, mechanically very sound, a bit silly at times but overall extremely atmospheric and enjoyable - come for the scares, stay for the good shooting. FEAR 2 is probably worth a play if you like cool guns that turn enemies to goo and some impressive visual set pieces, but other than that... it's like Monolith had no idea what made the first one good to begin with, which is even more strange considering Condemned was just about as, if not even more fucked up than FEAR. Have to wonder if the publisher ended up fucking them over.

 

[MasterSmithFandango]

Played through FEAR and FEAR 2 over the last few days.

FEAR is a pretty good shooter with some excellent combat. Unlike most modern shooters, it's clearly been designed with the PC in mind, and as such success is based heavily on skill, mastering the weapons, and thinking tactically in combat. The AI of enemies, environment design and reliance on visual and audio cues ensures that while decent players might get through okay, on hard difficulty you must have a full grasp of the combat mechanics. Probably the last PC shooter (date-wise) I've played that features this sort of gameplay.

Meanwhile, FEAR has some excellent atmosphere that is nearly unmatched, mostly owing to its haunting, mostly ambient soundtrack. It's well paced, constantly keeping tension up by almost never telegraphing what's coming next. It's not shocking like most "scary" games, but rather induces a constant paranoia as you're never quite sure until the very end whether you're crazy, if the strange things you're seeing are real, and the plot and its details are left ambiguous enough that you can fill in the gaps as you go, never quite sure of who the characters are, what their motives are, etc. Level design does tend to get monotonous (it's all office buildings, labs and run-down alleys), but the game isn't long enough to reach the point where it truly starts to grate. There's a little bit of derp here and there in the story and characters (particularly the extremely obese and annoying server admin type guy you run into a few times), but overall it's a game that lets you figure things out for yourself and doesn't treat you like an idiot - and considering it's a horror game, this is a very good thing, as too much exposition and hand-holding would wreck much of its impact.

FEAR 2 changes all that. While it's a very technically and artistically competent game, it's interesting to observe just how much it's been changed up in the switch over to console development. The action is fast, but not tactical, challenging or particularly skill-based, likely to compensate for the decreased precision of a gamepad. The enemies you fight aren't stupid, but the design of encounters (popamole and set pieces) means that they usually funnel into areas in predictable manners, the stealthy approach isn't an option, and they die very fast ensuring you rarely see them do anything particularly intelligent, even though the AI itself is actually pretty good and probably better than the first game's. All this combines to create combat that's fun, and rather satisfying, but fluffy - you never get that sense of learning the weapons, of outsmarting enemies, of using the environment to your advantage. It's all instant gratification.

That idea of instant gratification seems to have carried into the rest of the game's design as well. While FEAR was for the most part 100% linear, it did a good job of providing multiple routes and giving you the illusion that you were navigating large, open buildings. FEAR 2 has almost none of these, and there are pretty much two types of environment - linear corridors and area-type areas. It's much more straightforwardly a shooter, rather than a horror game with shooting as a combat mechanic like the first. As far as plot goes, it explains far too much. One of the best things about the first game was how it left so much up to speculation, and it didn't need to be explained, because it was a story that appealed to the senses and emotions, not the rational mind. In FEAR 2, there are too many characters, too much exposition, and most importantly, too much plot. We get huge info dumps about the backstory, and pseduo-scientific explanations of all the phenomena seen - but because it's pseudoscience, it makes absolutely no fucking sense anyway, effectively cheapening rather than enhancing the lore (the whole "a magic trick's ruined when you show how it's done" thing). Nothing is left to the imagination, and when there is no longer anything left to imagine, there is no more horror.

Most damningly, FEAR 2 just isn't scary, or even very atmospheric - for many, many reasons. The biggest problem are all the extra NPCs who constantly chat in your ear - it's annoying, for the most part poorly written, and completely removes all suspense when you're supposed to be soaking in the atmosphere (the worst is Miguel and his constant spouting of bad one-liners). Second is the music - FEAR's soundtrack was mostly ambient, and many parts of the game featured no music at all. FEAR 2 features a largely bombastic Hollywood-type score, almost comically videogamey in places, with only a very few creepy tracks. Some might call it varied; I say it only reinforces the derpiness of the game. The last issue is that there's just no subtlety to any of it - in FEAR, we had no idea of Alma and Paxton's motives, whether they were friends or enemies, who they were, and the game was smart enough to avoid showing its hand. Same goes for the horror sequences themselves. In FEAR, you'd see strange things out of the corner of your eye, people simply standing in the distance, etc. and it constantly put you on edge, made you feel like you were being watched, toyed with. In the sequel? Endless jump "scares", overdone special effects, quick time events, and almost all of the psychedelic, creepy sequences are gone save for one or two parts of the game. Horror is all about atmosphere, tension, anticipation, not about throwing a bunch of fucking crap at the audience.

So yeah, overall, FEAR is great, mechanically very sound, a bit silly at times but overall extremely atmospheric and enjoyable - come for the scares, stay for the good shooting. FEAR 2 is probably worth a play if you like cool guns that turn enemies to goo and some impressive visual set pieces, but other than that... it's like Monolith had no idea what made the first one good to begin with, which is even more strange considering Condemned was just about as, if not even more fucked up than FEAR. Have to wonder if the publisher ended up fucking them over.

No one is going to read a post that long about mediocre shooters.

 

[MasterSmithFandango]

Anyway, HOI3. Fuck that game, it's going to destroy my life.

 

[Trash]

Funny, I did read the post. Then again, I've been replaying FEAR during the last few days. Back in 2005 or so when I first played it the game looked shitty because I couldn't run it with max detail. Today on my brand new pc I run it maxxed out and it still looks like crap. Not because the graphics look shitty but because the entire art style is just off. There is a plastic shine about most things and character models all come from the ridiculously oversized and muscled fad that I think was the norm when this game came out. The levels look sterile and are plain boring in the meantime.

The AI however does a splendid job. Yes, I know it works with a simple set of directives but it *works* and that's what matters. All in all that enhances a game that is otherwise rather mediocre and rather uneven in quality.

Creeper World 2 has also been sucking away my free time. Number one had me hooked, so I picked this one up the moment it was released. Sadly, it's never as good as the original. The mechanics don't seem to gel together as well and they went from an overhead view to a side one. Which removes one of the best aspects of the original, being that you could manipulate the maps and the creeper itself to try and stop it from overflowing. I just miss seeing those big ass deep creeper pools and dreading their imminent running over. Creeper World 2 also seems to be much less about the creeper and tries very hard to become something alike a more traditional rts with the inclusion of a hostile race. All in all its quite a letdown though paradoxically some of the levels are much harder with even some better puzzles thrown in.

 

[Darth Roxor]

character models all come from the ridiculously oversized and muscled fad that I think was the norm when this game came out.

Wat. That is simply not true. They are p. much regular commando types, nowhere near the SPACE MARINES of, dunno, Gears of War or something.

 

[Serious_Business]

Final fantasy tactics. I've been playing this shit for 14 years and I think it's my favourite game.

I'm terrible at it though. I just realised there was a bunch of concepts of the game I didn't even know about, because I usually grind my way through and blast the enemies so I don't care about the details. This time I'm playing a playthrough in which I absolutely grind no random battles, so I have to know what the hell I'm doing for once. It's pretty sweet tactical play, altho most of time you can abuse the AI by simply healing and resurecting your guys constantly. It's not that the AI can't do the same, but they usually don't have the skill sets to do so. Otherwise though it's pretty brutal, I'm constantly half the level of my enemies, and yeah, no goddamn auto-potion.

I'm not even thinking of the 1.3 mod so far, looks like a mod made by rapists, I'm having enough of a challenge as it is.

The story is also pretty damn sweet, and so is the music. I swear, those sprites are more expressive than the most advanced face generation shit we get these days. The derp, dead-inside look most characters got in today's cinematic rpgs don't have nothing on a little sprite shaking its fist or drawing its sword

 

[MasterSmithFandango]

I prefer Tactics Ogre: Let Us Cling Together! but FFT is not a bad game by any stretch. Don't worry Serious Business... you haven't lost your Kodex Kool Kredits yet.

 

[anus_pounder]

A bunch of NDS Roms including Etrian Odyssey 3, Devil Survivor, Princess Debut and Blue Dragon.

 

[Trash]

character models all come from the ridiculously oversized and muscled fad that I think was the norm when this game came out.

Wat. That is simply not true. They are p. much regular commando types, nowhere near the SPACE MARINES of, dunno, Gears of War or something.

Just take another good look at these pictures. Indeed, no Space Marines but still ridiculously overblown looking. Look at that gun ffs.

 

[Konjad]

and counter strike source and zombie panic source