The Gaming Thread

[gunsage]

Xenogears, eh? By the time I got to the second disc, I had forgotten a pretty decent amount of the first. Even worse, the second disc has WAY too much text and not enough of the charm that was in the first disc as far as exploration, adventure, etc. Nope...just text...battles...text...battles. I didn't even bother finishing it because though the plot is very cool and deep, it's as if they weren't trying for the second disc.

And nevermind the direction the Xenosaga series took. I loved the first one, the second was a let down, and unfortunately while the third was a decent combination, it had the same problem...too much goddamn'd dialogue. And yes, it's primarily because they were just trying to wrap it up, but that alone has caused me to not bother continuing the second and to get somewhat bored with the third.

But if you REALLY want a plot to try and figure out, give Killer 7 a whirl. Love that game, but really, it doesn't warrant a second playthrough.

[Broomjockey]

Killer 7 had a plot? Really? I just thought it was an interesting concept wrapped up in bad graphics, lacking dialogue, and non-existant hit detection.

[gunsage]

Hey now, personally I like cel-shaded stuff like that. Honestly, I'm more intrigued because I don't quite understand how they make it work. Beyond that, the plot was so off the wall and nonsensical that it was, at least to me, entertaining. Now, if I had to change anything about the game, first off, you would NOT be on a track. There's absolutely no reason for it. Further, lack of HUD can kill a game just as much as an overly complex one can.

In this case, they don't show you your life, ammo, or even, if I recall correctly, your blood levels. Since you're on a track, there's no effective way to dodge, block, or even sidestep. I also didn't see the necessity to "blink" in order to see the enemies. Come on...you could just have had them appear out of nowhere...there's really no reason for that.

Beyond that, overall, it was a very fun game. Problem is, as is the case with a lot of "unique" titles, you'll either love it or hate it. Personally, I loved it. I was able to look past these annoying aspects of the game and enjoy the twisted adventure ahead of me. Another two examples of good concept/poor execution involve that of Clock Tower 3 and Rule of Rose.

Clock Tower 3 had you mostly hiding and performing various events to get away from whatever monster was chasing you. Anytime the monster attacked, it would raise your panic level. If it raises enough, well, you panic. And if you're attacked in panic mode, game over. Interesting concept, good plot...but the controls, terrible combat mechanics, and overly hard difficulty really dampened my experience with it.

Rule of Rose seemed like a decent survival/horror/absolutely freaking twisted title at first (and it is), until you enter combat. Rule of Rose's combat structure and control is HORRIBLE. It doesn't help any that there was virtually no thought process put into the monsters and the terribly limited inventory had you constantly travelling to and from save points. That and the mapping system really wasn't all that great either.

Even so, RoR's plot was enough to keep me interested and it's not as if 90% of the battles were terribly challenging, so it really wasn't that big of a deal. Bummer that you only get guns toward the end of the game, though (at least if you choose the bad ending, anyway).

[Broomjockey]

I liked Killer 7 well enough, and I'm not ragging on Cell-shading (I really liked Wind Waker), but I'm ragging on the graphics. I had problems seeing through walls, tearing, and pop-ups. And there was seriously a minimum of hit detection. If it wasn't for that, I could have forgiven every other problem.

[gunsage]

Oh, I see. Yeah, I do have to agree with that. In any case, I also went on to enjoy Grasshopper/Suda 51's Contact for the DS. Not a lot of people liked it for some reason and probably because it was so griding intensive. In any case, I also look forward to No More Heroes for the Wii. It looks something fierce.

[Broomjockey]

Yes, it does look awesome, and I'm glad that the reviews I read all say the controls are good. Too bad it isn't out until Feb. but that's probably just as well. (I have exams and such )

[gunsage]

For me, I don't really care when it comes out. The major problem here is I definitely WANT it...not want to play it, WANT it. It was the same way with Killer 7 and Resident Evil 4...not only could I not find them to rent, but I actually WANTED them...I didn't just want to rent them. In any case, I don't have a Wii and therefore, I am saddened.

[Rahmota]

Broomjockey:

My ex-friend is probably going to be insanely pissed about 4th edition D&D. He's bought almost every extra book you could name. It's a couple thousand dollars worth of investment, and now he's (knowing him) going to get really pissed and either toss it all, or pretend 4th doesn't exist, and get really angry any time someone brings it up.

If you want to find out more there are a few good sites. the official wizards one but they make you pay a slight fee to get the insider info. www.enworld.org is really good with the previews.

Technically is wasn't D&D 2.5 but the player's option books filled that role. I didn't see the stagnation too bad. But then again I make my own world's, scenarios, campaigns and stuff and only glean the official stuff for useful ideas/tools I can rip.

As for pretending 4th doesn't exist thats what me and my group are goign to do. My friend in the Navy is in the same boat with every 3rd edition and most of second edition collected. See what happens when you get combat pay and dont spend it on women and booze... so while he doesnt exactly growl or grit his teeth when you talk about 4th he isnt exactly thrilled with it....

Gravekeeper: Yeah 1st ed D&d was cool. There where rules for everything in there. I have my build/work copy 1st ed Dm Guide dog eared, duct taped and glued together and my collection copy on the shelf in the office. The 3.5 Dm Guide is pretty okay with how they brought back a lot of the old rules like they had in 1st.

vonkarolinas:

Personally as a rpger I HATE D&D always have. Ever since the TSR days, I always found it so damn limiting. Even when WOTC took over it was too restrictive

Wow what kind of DM did you have? I've always found D&D to be when run by a good DM to be flexible, fun and entertaining. Even if you play it by the rules its still really flexible. It would take a real rules lawyer to make it inflexible to that degree. I've played characters that have done wierd and wild stuff very much similar to Jack Sparrow's antics (only usually not to the same degree of success) or worse. I had a 1/2 orc fighter who wound up owning his own small planet in spelljammer after starting on greyhawk, winding up on torill and a brief stay in ravenloft. He had a pet griffon, an elven wife who had been polymoprhed into an orc and all sorts of other stuff. heck my best character was a human barbarian who wound up with a character sheet that was 7 pages long front and back thanks to the stuff that had happened to him.

As for whitewolf. I guess its okay. I've tried vampire but the guy who GMd it was a nutjob who got a wee bit too creepy with it. My friend runs werewolf and I'm sorta getting into it. Kinda. But since he's in the Navy that kinda limits the table time.

And now for my rant on computer RPGs.

Now that is one reason I dont like playing computer RPGs. Those things are totally inflexible, limiting, unfun. I dont care how flexible or whatever they claim to be. You are limited to a set of actions and storyline and if you try to do something very unusual or outside the little box they shove you into then the game yells at you or in a bad one crashes. (not so much anymore I know but still). I've played computer RPGs since back in teh days of Zork. Now that was an RPG game at least. In many ways the text parser based RPGs while maybe not as flashy and spectaculat and still rather limited where more fun than the latest and greatest computer RPG that requires a home cray to work on.

Not to mention they all wind up insulting my intelligence (like Neverwinter nights, titan quest) as they require utterly no brain power to go through and solve any of the puzzles in there. The roleplaying aspect are all stilted and useless. Kinda like the dialogue in a porno in some of them. You either get led around by the nose while waitign for the next chance to get into combat. Or the dialog just is a pointless waste of time until the next combat.

And thats what all these computer RPGs boild down to. The puzzles are nothign more than keep taking random guesses until you get it right. The games are all just about how much munchkiny garbage you can collect off the dead bodies you loot and pillage. No roleplaying at all just roll playing.

I loathe the existence of World of Crackquest. I have never played it never will. I have however tried to do an intervention on someone addicted to it and have sat and looked over a person's shoulder while they played it. I wound up staring at the aquarium as it was much more interesting.

Sorry for all you computer gamer folk but I'll take a pen and ink sit around the table game over a computer one always. Thats just my feelign on it and if you like em then more power to you. have fun at it.
End

[gunsage]

To be truthful, there aren't a whole lot of PC style RPGs that I get into. A lot of people went on and on about Morrowind, KOTR, etc., but even when I force myself to sit down and play them, I'm just not having fun. Maybe it's because I grew up playing Final Fantasy, Dragon Warrior, and the like. One of my uncles had an old old OLD D&D DOS game that was all text and actually, it was pretty fun.

Beyond that, though, I just don't get draw into them very much. I mean, sure, there's simple action/RPGs like Diablo and such that are fun, but again, those are action/RPGs, not standard RPGs. For the record, I'm not saying I don't like action/RPGs. Far from it, actually. What's nice about turn-based is it gives you time to really think about your strategy. And yes, that's another reason why I typically take strategy/RPGs (turn-based, of course) over action/RPGs in just about every scenario.

However, to be fair, I think I'd probably have to list my favorites as follows...

Favorite RPG - Final Fantasy 7. Runner up - Chrono Trigger.
Favorite Strategy/RPG - Disgaea. Runner up - Final Fantasy Tactics.
Favorite Action/RPG - Rogue Galaxy. Runner up - Dark Cloud 2.

No, I didn't deliberately not include PC games on this list, that's just how it shook out. For example, I'd be stupid to not mention the Fallout series or Deus Ex. However, in most cases, a PC RPG has to be really quite something to intrigue me. I guess that's about it.

[Gravekeeper]

Wow, why all the PC RPG hate?

While I love me some Chrono Trigger to be blunt Chrono Trigger, Final Fantasy etc aren't really RPGs so to speak. They're like diet RPGs. Its not like you're ever really called upon to make decisions or shape a character in any way. 99% of console RPGs are quite linear and don't allow you to affect the story very much if at all.

Thats why Oblivion got such high marks because you were basically just thrown in a sandbox. You weren't forced to go anywhere or do anything if you didn't want too but you could go and do whatever you wanted, where ever you wanted. But the problem with Oblivion is the same as its strength. Without a strong story narrative its just a really cool sandbox. So I never really got much into it either despite the fact I own it. I enjoy games with actual story lines and characters.

I just got finished playing Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines. Even though its a few years old. Still looks good because of the Half-Life 2 engine.

Now THAT is a roleplaying game. The clan you choose, what you do and what you say drastically effects how things play out and every scenario has multiple ways you can succeed based on your skills/playstyle/character/clan. Of course Malkavian is the clear winner. Just because you hear voices and all your dialogue options are insane. Oh, and you can use your Dementia to convince a guy he's really a grizzly bear and his two henchmen are salmon. Problem solved.

Anyone knocking PC RPGs needs to look into the legend that is Baldur's Gate 2. Not to mention Planescape: Torment and Fallout 1/2 of course. Then go snag Vampire Bloodlines off Direct2Drive. It's only 20 bucks. ;9

PS. KOTOR was good too. But KOTOR2 sucks since it was done by those bastards that did NWN2.

[Rahmota]

gravekeeper:

Wow, why all the PC RPG hate?

Because I find them boring, useless wastes of my time. The scripts are too limited as I'm always thinking of a way of doing something in an encounter or combat that the game designers didnt put into their script. The "roleplaying" enouncters are limited to stilted and useless dialogue and don't stimulate any thinking/roleplaying or plot movement other than dragging the character into another combat situation. If I wanted combat I'll do a turn based strategy game.

Baldur's Gate 2. Not to mention Planescape: Torment

had them both, got bored with them about 1/3 and 1/2 way through respectively, gave them over to my eldest for a couple music cds in trade. The wife has titan quest titan quest immortal throne. Boooring! Just one excuse for combat over and over and over. hack slash hack slash repeat over and over ad nauseum. And the dialogue sucks.

Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines

Oh that game. Thats an example of just number crunching and min/maxing the character to be able to meet the needs of the situation. No real roleplaying. I tried it at a friends house and got bored with it after like 15 minutes. It looks cool but just didnt grip me.


Gunsage:I dont lump pure turn based strategy games into the rest of the RPG games verse. One I do find kinda interesting, at least it is a tolerable way to pas the time is Dungeon Keeper 1 and 2. Build a dungeon then fight those pesky heroes. Still kinda limited and boring eventually (I've never finished either one getting too bored with them after a while)

As for Final Fantasy it didnt grip me either. For much the same reason as the others. Too restrictive a script, too restrictive a gameplay and the visuals where just plain goofy and distracting.

I dunno PC based RPGs just leave me cold. They are no substitute for tabletop pen and ink RPGS to me. I have no problem with violence or combat in games. Heck some of my most memorable characters had a great deal of violence in their history list.

a human barbarian who wound up with a character sheet that was 7 pages long front and back thanks to the stuff that had happened to him.

Which yeah I mistyped that. His history was 17 pages long front and back not a mere 7. I played that character for 5 years real time and from age 14 to age 50 game time. Started out as an outcast orphan and ended up a respected and honored barbarian king who had founded his own empire by uniting warring tribes and villages into a grand unity. Had alliances with several major empires. Had several times improvised things. I mean what PC RPG can you use another character as a weapon?

Story: My guy had been tripped in the middle of combat over the hobbit who had blown his tumble roll. This caused him to drop his favorite lovely sword in the world. (All his weapon slots went into the sword. He could even throw a great sword like a dagger with the amout of slots he had.) So I had the barbarian grab the hobbit by the ankles and swing him into the ogre as a club (his other chosen weapon). Critical hit. Boom down goes the ogre, and unfortunately the hobbit still lived too. Oh well. Ahh fond memories.

[gunsage]

You wanna know why I consider most PC RPGs but still end up archiving them after playing about a few hours total?

1. Dialogue. Okay, yes, in console RPGs there typically isn't a LOT of dialogue unless it's, wait for it, RELEVANT. One of the earliest gripes I had about Morrowind was what is important and what isn't. The problem here is that I could care less about what the people say if they mostly say the same things anyway AND it's mostly worthless. What IS relevant is put in your journal, which typically prompts me to run up to random people, click through every possible dialogue choice, close out the conversation, and move on. BOOOORING.

At least in RPGs like Xenosaga, Final Fantasy, etc., that rarely happens. Yes, you have NPCs that say some of the most generic stuff, but typically it's "Welcome to Corneria!" or "Gosh, the empire sucks!" I can stand ridiculously long cutscenes packed with dialogue over worthless mountains of misinformation.

2. Action and pacing. Yes, there are a number of PC RPGs that have cool starters. And yes, games like Fallout, Planescape: Torment, etc. have good starters that draw you in, but then suffer from the above reason AND a lack of pacing. "Oh, but they're sandbox style!" you say. Sandbox style is not an excuse of the developer's part to be lazy! Sandbox style relies heavily on the user to be motivated and unfortunately, I'M NOT.

I really get into games like Disgaea because though it's very very linear, there's so many goodies, extras, and what have you available that it allows a lot of flexibility. Plot-wise, no, but developmental-wise yes.

3. Up until recently, PC RPGs didn't bother truly competing with console-style RPGs. Graphics weren't that big of a concern and it was more dedicated to old-style hardcord RPG enthusiasts. By "old-style," I mean those that grew used to tabletop style RPGs, text-based RPGs, etc.

PC RPGs have much to offer, but they're also very set in their ways. A lot of developers (Bioware, Bethesda, Interplay, etc.) have attempted to bring PC RPGs to the console market. Some are quite successful. It's not that I hate PC RPGs, it's just that I know what I can expect. In contrast, yes, a lot of console RPGs can be considered more "child-like," but therein lies the problem. It's not that it's child-like...more low brow, maybe, but that's also where the success of it is...it's simpler.

PC RPGs should not be console RPGs or vice versa, but both have a lot to learn from each other. I enjoy complexity in my games, but also want the entertainment value found in fast-paced console style games. This is something I constantly keep in mind as I proceed in my path to becoming a game developer.

[gunsage]

Oh, there was one final thing I wanted to relay that doesn't have to do with argument's sake. On PW3, I finally got past Pearls' psychelocks. Whew...that wasn't easy. I mean, in retrospect, it makes sense. Once I got past the second lock, it was all downhill, but initially, I really had no idea. So yeah, that's probably about done. Unfortunately, yet again, it addresses the question where do I go from here? There are plenty of PSP titles I'm interested in, but I'm not willing to buy really new stuff right now unless it's going to LAST.

And no, I'm not going to play through FFT AGAIN. Sorry. Valkyrie Profile Lenneth made sense for me because I really enjoy the game, but never finished it on the PS1. FFT makes no sense whatsoever because I've played it pretty much the whole way through and saw my bro beat it...good enough for me. I was thinking maybe the latest Zelda, but then again, my other idea is to get alllllllll the brain/coordination games that were released recently in an attempt to really get my mind going.

I loved Brain Age, but there are so many others now that I don't even know where to start. Flash Focus looks cool, Word Coach could be helpful, and then there's also stuff like Brain Age 2. BA2 is a definite must if it has more sudoku. Hmm.

[Rahmota]

Gunsage: I'll agree with you on #3. Me being a tabletop gamer and all that.

I guess my biggest problem is that i think outside the box on a lot of things and it frustrates/annoys me when I want to do something and the pc rpg doesnt even consider that option. I know scripts and computer resources are finite and all that. I also see how much better the modern computers are compared to the older system and it seems like the newer games are concentrating on fluff and look of the game rather than the substance of the game like they used to when the hardware limitations made stunning visuals and full motion cutscenes a moot point. Its a style thing too.

If you do become a game devloper (I wish you good luck on it) then may I ask/suggest that you concentrate on making the substance and story of the game be better than the special effects and fluff.

I dunno. I don't even play console rpgs. The only thing I play on the PS2 are car race games and fighting games like mortal kombat and need for speed.

I think I'll back out of this one as I'm in the wrong place.

[gunsage]

Actually, I find it more insightful than anything that this argument was posed on this forum rather than the gaming forum I go to as well. Yes, we've had the "Is Zelda an RPG?" debate, primarily fueled by...THIS. In any case, I'm not saying I absolutely abhor PC RPGs. No, actually, I'll give just about any game a shot.

TYPICALLY, this is what I've found from PC RPGs. What I will say, however, is that sandbox-style (which is very typical of most PC RPGs) is an interesting concept, but it really requires a lot on the user. I've mentioned one of my ideas here before for a game and it involves the following basic, but very expandable, concept:

Pure development where virtually everything's connected and almost limitless skills with which to develop.

Basically, that means if you perform a left jab, did it hit? How hard? How effective was it, given the circumstances? Was it a critical strike? Did it break the enemy's guard? Was it countered? There are a lot of things that are considered and then from all of those exp is applied to a variety of skills, techniques, stats, and much more that make sense.

See, I like the flexibility games like Diablo give you by allowing you to apply stat points yourself, but it doesn't make much sense. I mean, come on...if I'm a warrior and all I do is go around and beat peoples' faces in, does it make sense that my intelligence would raise? Of course not. All the same, Final Fantasy games are often too restrictive in that you have set classes and you can't really go outside of their boundaries.

In other words, let's assume, for whatever reason, you had your white mages beating the hell out of people rather than using magic of any kind. Since your character levels are based on a specific class, it doesn't really matter...primarily your intelligence will rise and things associated with it, but only minor strength upgrades here and there.

This method says "Okay, you decide how you want to develop by your own actions." Further, I plan on having "moods and behaviors" that can be both positive and negative at the same time that occur based on combat experience, your decisions in battle, loud noises, etc. In other words, let's say you don't have a lot of combat experience and you get surrounded.

You develop the "panic" mood, which heightens your agility and things associated with agility, but lowers accuracy and strength. In other words, you're telling yourself to RUN AWAY. If you don't run away, there's a good chance that the next time this happens, you'll instead develop a different mood fitting your previous decisions...perhaps "coolheaded" or something along those lines.

Plot-wise, I like games that have a relatively linear plot but allow flexibility. I hate games that are SO sandbox that it feels like they don't bother guiding you or doing anything helpful or interesting after about the first hour of gameplay. However, I also like goodies. I like games where there are more side missions to the game than primary missions and plenty of missions you can do over and over again, which is another reason I loved Fable, but really wished it was longer, had more depth, etc.

Anyway, back on topic...I've yet to go back to Wright, but I need to...I feel like I'm VERY close to the end. Didn't really get a chance to touch Rogue Galaxy either. Honestly, right now I'm waiting for my voucher to come in for the second part of the A+ certifications, but today I was tired and didn't play anything. Sorry.