| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 42 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 01:48:51 |
| Calls: | 220 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 824 |
| Messages: | 121,543 |
| Posted today: | 6 |
I stuck with the franchise through the "Modern Warfare" trilogy, again largely because memories of the first game gave me hope that the
franchise would reach such heights again. The gameplay of those games
wasn't too bad, but the ra-ra-America-So-Great! attitude of that
trilogy games (existant even in the original COD but somewhat subdued
by its international mission structure) was a real turn-off. So too
was the heavy-handed reliance on scripting (to the point you sometimes couldn't even open a door without the AI doing it for you), and the
player character changing from a simple grunt into a super-human
killing machine.
That is an impressive list of sequel games you have there. The only
one I can compete with you on is Might and Magic because I have all
10. I also have two copies of the first one. C-64 and PC.
Anyway, my other post might make it sound like I have the same
interest in new innovative titles that Spalls does when I really
don't. So let me make it clear that I do not care about innovation in
the video game industry. I am mostly a retro gamer. I like old games.
I like old games with a fresh coat of paint (remakes).
It's less impressive that it looks. I bought almost none of those games
at full price when they were new. For example, while I did pay full
price for the Might and Magic VI collector's edition, it came with all
the previous Might and Magic games. The Total War games almost all come
from a single bundle, except those that I already had from a bundle I
bought before.
Personally, I do like innovation, but I don't expect it or need it
from the big publishers. There's plenty of innovative games being
released all the time, so it doesn't matter if Ubisoft, EA and >Microsoft/Activision/Blizard are squeezing every dime out of their
franchises or not.
Oh wait, older games on list, vice city and san andreas I did buy.
Interesting GTA 4 is not on the list, which since it would not install
cause of the need for MS's game service, that they fucking cancelled!
GTA5 was never even an option.
A trend that does bother me in games is gambling, because it's obviously taking advantage of people's addictions. I'm concerned that the "whales" spending thousands of dollars on gatcha games and lootboxes aren't all
rich people with money to burn as many people assume.
That's one of the things that started putting me off. I felt the balance
been a cinematic experience and a game one was lost.
The original "Call of Duty" was very cinematic too; it was in fact one
of the major complaints about the game. You don't really have much
option of where to go and what to do; it's a corridor-shooter through
and through (even if the 'corridors' are cleverly disguised as outdoor locations).
I probably have most if not all the Elder Scrolls games, but didn't
really enjoy the majority of them. Only Daggerfall and Skyrim. I still bought or obtained them.
On 02/11/2024 05:07, Justisaur wrote:
I probably have most if not all the Elder Scrolls games, but didn't
really enjoy the majority of them.á Only Daggerfall and Skyrim.á I still
bought or obtained them.
I was late to the party with Dagger Fall and the graphics made my eyes
bleed and it also didn't help that I didn't really get the format of the >game. Oblivion I liked until I realised just how much of the content was >procedurally-generated and the main quest was go to tower, kill
everything, repeat at next tower. Skyrim, loved it.
I was late to the party with Dagger Fall and the graphics made my eyes
bleed and it also didn't help that I didn't really get the format of the >game. Oblivion I liked until I realised just how much of the content was >procedurally-generated and the main quest was go to tower, kill
everything, repeat at next tower. Skyrim, loved it.
Well, I'd argue my copies of Might and Magic 1-5 count as physical copies >because they're on a CD-ROM included with the M&M6 collector's edition.
I also have a physical copy of 7 and 9, but for 8 I just have GOG.com >version. Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure I had throw out the collector >edition's box when I moved years ago. I never really considered it a >collector's item though, I just got that edition because it included
the other games.
Xocyll <Xocyll@gmx.com> writes:
Oh wait, older games on list, vice city and san andreas I did buy.
Same here.
Interesting GTA 4 is not on the list, which since it would not install
cause of the need for MS's game service, that they fucking cancelled!
GTA4 was kinda sad so no surprise. And had a lame drive model for cars >although decent with sports cars but those weren't easy to come by. And
no garages, just a little parking spot outside safe houses.
And bikes were basically on ball bearings so almost impossible. That
they fixed in the biker DLC finally. So not much fun driving cars or
bikes, initially. Kind of lost the point, why make game where driving is
a big part of it and then make driving not fun?
The transition from Microsoft's thingy was handled decently, at least in
my case. I had the game on DVD and the two DLCs in the Microsoft
thingy. Those were converted so that I can now install the game with DLC
from Rockstar's launcher. It even offers to look for Games for Windows
saves on my computer.
JAB <noway@nochance.com> looked up from reading the entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:
On 02/11/2024 05:07, Justisaur wrote:
I probably have most if not all the Elder Scrolls games, but didn't
really enjoy the majority of them. Only Daggerfall and Skyrim. I still >>> bought or obtained them.
I was late to the party with Dagger Fall and the graphics made my eyes
bleed and it also didn't help that I didn't really get the format of the
game. Oblivion I liked until I realised just how much of the content was
procedurally-generated and the main quest was go to tower, kill
everything, repeat at next tower. Skyrim, loved it.
Daggerfall (all one word) had proceduralized generated random
landscapes.
instanced dungeons were hand crafted.
Oblivion was even more generated content and ever tower was the same,
kill shit as you climb tower(s) and flip between towers til you reach
own and close rift.
Literally the same thing over and over again.
Daggerfall had its issues, but it was the peak of the series.
Skyrim was so small it basically happened in the back yard, whereas if
you look at the space on the map, it's supposed to be the size or larger
than Daggerfall.
Supposed to be the size of the mid west, but actually the size of Maine.
Next elder scrolls game - suppose to be thousands of sq kilometers,
actual size, living room in tiny apt.
On Wed, 30 Oct 2024 09:42:17 +0000, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:
On 29/10/2024 16:07, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
That's one of the things that started putting me off. I felt the balance >>>> been a cinematic experience and a game one was lost.
The original "Call of Duty" was very cinematic too; it was in fact one
of the major complaints about the game. You don't really have much
option of where to go and what to do; it's a corridor-shooter through
and through (even if the 'corridors' are cleverly disguised as outdoor
locations).
I thought it got a better balance between the two and also although it
is a corridor shooter it still felt like there was flexibility in what
you could do and less scripted.
Oh, it was definitely the superior game in the franchise. It certainly
was less scripted than later games too, if only because its arenas
were slightly more open. But any freedom was definitely an illusion.
This wasn't necessarily a bad thing; by restricting the player and
guiding the action, the developers controlled the pacing of the
action. You'd get moments of extreme action followed by brief lulls;
the combination made the former all the more exciting.
(One of my problems with the later games was that it was all-action,
all the time. Lacking any moments of quiet, the constant action
started to get quite monotonous).
But what the original Call of Duty did well is hide how well it guided
you forward, to the point you barely noticed that you were going
exactly where the developers intended.
On 10/27/2024 7:11 AM, Ross Ridge wrote:
Mike S. <Mike_S@nowhere.com> wrote:
No, I can't. Your list really says it all. I have always blamed
gamers, not the studios firstly, and your list is the reason why I do.
We talk the talk but we do not walk the walk.
I don't blame publishers or gamers, as I've never had a problem with
sequels. How can I complain about there being countless Call of Duty
games or Madden games when I bought so many sequels myself?
I have Might and Magic 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9, Heroes of Might
and Magic 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, plus Civilization 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.
On the consoles, I have Final Fantasy 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 10-2, 12,
13. and 13-2, plus Disgaea 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, D2. I won't list all the
Total War games I have, but I have 10 of them, plus 7 Tales of games
and 8 Harvest Moon games. There's also the 5 Grand Theft Auto games,
plus 4 Borderlands, 4 Thief, 4 Deus Ex, 4 Jedi Knight, 4 Saints Row,
and 4 Europa Universalis games.
Now some of these games I could live without, and there's more than a
few I haven't gotten around to playing yet, but for the most part I
think my video game collection would be much worse off without all
these sequels.
I don't really do series like that. The only couple I've done are all
the Fallouts and all the Dark Souls (actual Fromsoft games)
FO 1, 2, T, BoS, 3, NV, 4, S, 76. The real rarity is I enjoyed and
finished every one of them that are finishable (though haven't played
the DLCs for NV & 4.) Which reminds me I need to get around to FO London.
DS is only 1, 2, 3, ER, BB, and DeS and I can't even say I truly enjoyed
all of those, parts yes, but parts no. I didn't even finish DeS, or the
DLCs for 2.
On Thu, 31 Oct 2024 09:17:03 +0000, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:
I feel that corridor shooters are somewhat unfairly maligned compared to
open world games. In the latter you obviously do get more freedom in the
order of which you do things but also how much of it is, oh you want to
do that quest well just head towards the quest marker and once there
it's a set path to follow and just to make sure we'll give you more
sub-quest markers as you progress so you don't get lost.
Is it really that much different being explicitly told where to go
compared to the level being designed to 'guide' you?
I don't have a problem with corridor shooters. In fact, I sometimes
have a preference for them; I find open-world FPS games so damned
exhausting! Corridor shooters have much greater control of the pacing
of the narrative, and can better direct the emotional tenor of the
experience because the developers know where (and, within a certain
degree of accuracy, when) you're going next.
But the best of these games hide how limited the ride is from the
player, to the point where many don't even consider going off path
because the design of the game discourages them from even considering
it. There are a variety of tricks that can be used for this; brightly
lit rooms on the expected path, or putting loot (or enemies) visible
in the direction you're supposed to go, or dozens of other tricks. The
best games offer _just_ enough area to wander in that -should you have
an exploratory bent- there's somewhere for you to go if you want to go
off the path, but not so far as to destroy the overall pacing.*
But other, less-skillfully designed games don't do this; they rely
instead on invisible walls blocking obvious paths, or scripting so heavy-handed that even when you want to do the obvious thing (such as
open the door to the next arena) you can't until the game lets you. It completely destroys the immersion of the experience. You're reminded
of how little control you have, and that's galling.
The early "Call of Duty" games fell into the former category. The
later of the franchise** games fell into the latter.
Ah, ok. I own physical copies of all the Might and & Magics including
the collector's edition of M&M VI. I don't usually do collector's
editions but I did for M&M VI. My box is a bit messed up though, >unfortunately. Hopefully yours is in better condition. :-P