Results 18,781 to 18,800 of 35221
18-12-2013, 09:47 PM #18781
- Join Date
- Jun 2011
playing some chivalry. What always irritates me most about that game, more than anything else, is how bad everyone is at it. In TF2 it's sort of fine because in TF2 the worst spy in the world can't backstab -you-. But in chivalry, you usually have to be worried about your own inept as fuck teammates running in and horizontal swinging, or blocking vital doorways with their fat fucking faces, or choicely, miraculously, improbably strafing directly into the path of your precision stab and then blaming you for it, or...
Ok. I try not to be mad at people for being shit. I'm shit at a lot of things. But this really is the reason I avoid multiplayer. I love people who 'play for fun', honestly I do. I just wish I didn't have to be on your team. Ever.
There. I said it. I'm an asshole. But I only wrote it here because I had to vent it and I'm not enough of an asshole to angry baby spam it into teamchat in game and then ragequit.
18-12-2013, 11:59 PM #18782
I'm trying out Farm Simulator 2013 because I really want a new management/tycoon style game, and I've played all the Prison Architect I can stomach until the actual release comes out. I think Farm Simulator might actually be a great game, but having to do everything in first person is making me bounce right off of it. The systems and mechanics of the game seem good, but I want a traditional overhead "god" view. So I'm going to head in the opposite spectrum and play Arkham City next, and just mindlessly smash heads for a while. I've heard that Arkham Origins has some of my favorite comics characters in it, but City is the superior game. Plus, Mark Hamill's Joker is amazing, as always.
19-12-2013, 01:27 AM #18783
Ok, I just spent my first 2 hours with Don't Starve. It is so much fun!
I have a quick question though. At the beginning of every day, the game 'saves'. Does this mean that if I quit the game at that point, next time I can load that save and continue from that point? (my first playthrough lasted 2 hours and died horribly by some hog pig thing, so I couldn't test this).
19-12-2013, 01:30 AM #18784
Mass Effect. Somehow my FemShep and this Kaidan character have become interested in each other. This annoys me greatly because I wasn't aiming for that all. And he's too generic anyway. I should have let him die instead of Ashley.
Maybe I'll get the chance to kick his teeth out or something.
The game has an oddly imprecise dialogue system; very often the options don't give you a proper idea of what your response will be.
Also, TOO MANY LIFTS, and too much walking in general.
19-12-2013, 01:45 AM #18785
19-12-2013, 01:57 AM #18786
19-12-2013, 02:00 AM #18787
It doesn't always work, but for the most part, it does. It isn't about if you are a good or bad person (although, the ending does seem to imply you are a good teacher or an asshat), it is about how much collateral damage and terror you spread while getting your vengeance and what nots.
19-12-2013, 02:09 AM #18788
Well, yeah, that was what I was implying. Killing only your targets means collateral damage stays limited, chaos stays low, and you get the 'good ending'. But the point is that your targets were presented as downright evil, which I interpret as the game giving you a free pass for murdering them. Contrary to what InternetNiceGuy says I never saw anything indicating that I should feel bad for killing the High Overseer.
19-12-2013, 02:10 AM #18789
Started on The Witcher 2. I'm about an hour in and I've decided that I'm just going to play this game on easy, because I'm mostly in it for the story. The changes to combat, certainly make it more challenging than the first game, but I also dislike how it moved from what the combat was in the first game to the more action, free form version it is now.
19-12-2013, 03:36 AM #18790
But then I detested the combat in the first game - it was one reason I gave up on it - so make of that what you will.
19-12-2013, 04:11 AM #18791
19-12-2013, 04:15 AM #18792
- Join Date
- Sep 2012
I found the combat in both games pretty simple ARPG fare. It's a moderately fun game and CD projeckt is amazing to their fans, but I never understood the Witcher as the whole second coming of RPGs thing. The boss fights are almost entirely in tiny arenas with no room to move (except for the octopus boss), and roll/stun/stab worked for the vast majority of fights in the game.
Last edited by Internet; 19-12-2013 at 04:17 AM.
19-12-2013, 03:34 PM #18793
There's basically only two, potentially three moments where it is implied in the narrative that you are genuinely tested. For the most part the game is otherwise at pains to telegraph that you are beating up animals and over confident or unskilled morons and bullies. And that's how it works out. It's borne out outside of you as well-the figures in the game held up to be legendary combatants can similarly fight off hordes of foes while rank and file grunts that might accompany you fall in a matter of seconds.
I personally really liked the Witcher combat, for a similar reason. Again, you are narratively spekaing a supernaturally skilled whirling dervish of a man in combat and the game facilitated that well. You didn't play it for so long as you admitted but once you get past a certain level this really becomes the case as you Merrily parry, strike, dodge and decapitate in a matter of well timed clicks. It's less mechanically involved than in 2 but it serves its purpose well. I fail to see how it differs from pretty much nay other RPG where you likewise just click on enemies, usually with far less mechanical feedback.
19-12-2013, 03:46 PM #18794
I made it through all of The Witcher 1 on normal and died maybe twice before that fight and then a few times on that fight. In TW2 I died to the first group of 3 people.
Also, I'm not far into the game at all, but when the hell did Geralt get Jedi mind powers and why was it never mentioned in the story of the first game? He started doing this thing with his hand and the game would tell me something like mind aard failed or passed, but this was never shown in the story of the first game. It might have been in a book somewhere, but I don't like it at all. I don't want to turn into fantasy jedi man. I have star wars for when I want to play jedi. I want the witcher to be drug fuelled brilliant sword fighter man. because that's what the first game was.
19-12-2013, 03:54 PM #18795
And Geralt always had access to signs and what not. I forget which sign it is that does mind control, but in TW1 you could stun/turn an enemy. TW2 just extends it to dialogue
Quick google says it is axii http://witcher.wikia.com/wiki/Axii_sign
19-12-2013, 04:03 PM #18796
Ah you're right. It's that sign I never used in combat because why would I when I'm deadly with a sword, and it was never used in dialogue options because the options never used your abilities. I noticed as well in TW2 you can do things like try intimidate and punch people as dialogue options. Not sure I like that change.
19-12-2013, 04:06 PM #18797
I like having the options, but I wish that axii had been kept as a very situational one. Threatening people and what not fits Geralt, but being a master of magic/mind control seems a bit of a stretch. Would have preferred it to be tied to intimidation where you can use a few signs to scare the poopy out of people.
19-12-2013, 04:20 PM #18798
I could partly agree that the game is more about empowering the player on normal difficulty than a gruelling test of skill, but I don't think the game does a very good job of conveying this if that was in fact CDP's intention. Life in the game's universe is repeatedly shown to be nasty, brutish and short, Geralt is repeatedly shown to be cautious and careful, and I always got the sense that even though he was a skilled warrior he could still go down fast enough if the odds turned against him (I mean, that's kinda what the plot is ultimately about, no?).
And I found the fighting in the first game as tedious as it seems you'd find my way of playing the second. It was a nice idea, I'll give CDP that, but the whole click-click-click thing just seemed like a terrible knockoff lifted from Vagrant Story's combat, only where the pace of that game suited the silly "videogame-y" nature of waiting for button prompts (and the fighting there was far deeper than either Witcher game), to me, the clicking seemed utterly divorced from the combat animations. I wasn't picking different fighting styles, I was simply picking different types of half-assed QTE and watching some guy who had nothing to do with me flail away unconvincingly in the background. (Although I started to get annoyed with it far earlier than that, when I hit the Benny Hill situation with the fight against the ghost dog.)
I just don't get how people can treat The Witcher - certainly the second game - as a deep and complex RPG (which large portions of the internet most certainly did; NeoGAF went absolutely mad over it). To me, it is no such thing, and all the evidence to indicate it is no such thing seems to be right there in plain sight. The most efficient way of playing the game is button-mashing, all the deeper systems are utterly superfluous, the story prioritises spectacle over any kind of lasting reflection... it's certainly spectacular, no argument there, it was fun to play, I don't regret buying it day one and I'm looking forward to the third game but I am being completely honest when I say despite its mediocre production values and dreadful design flaws I enjoyed Dragon Age II a lot more than the second Witcher, overall.
Last edited by Eight Rooks; 19-12-2013 at 04:22 PM.
19-12-2013, 04:23 PM #18799
19-12-2013, 05:29 PM #18800