I know! I know! A hybrid of Rock 'n Roll Racing and Lost Vikings! They'll name it: Rock Vikings!
Or maybe an FPS? Though that's not their forte as of the moment.
I highly doubt it's a new MMO. I mean risking alienating or diving their WoW fanbase is not a very good move.
Or maybe it's a Guitar Hero MMO! Think about it! Activison wants money,Blizzard knows how to make money, GH makes a ton of money = that to Guitar Hero Online! Yeah I can see the dollar signs rolling in Activision's eyes!
I'm really into one or the other. If you check my GamerDNA page I'm totally into exploration. More than anything, when I pop in a new game, I want something I've never seen before, even if it sucks.
On the other hand, my long-term favorites are music, racing, fighting and puzzle games because I love refining my skills at something, so even though I may be rerunning the same level with the same configuration, if I can shave a little time off or get a few more points, it means it's played out differently.
Yes, that's pretty much directly conflicting. No, I don't really have a deeper point about it. '_';
Fable II was my disappointment of the year. I loved the first one but this one...I just don't appreciate. Perhaps I expect more out of games now. Molyneux's weak attempt to add consequences to a game somehow managed to turn the game into something where there were entirely no consequences whatsoever. I can force push my kid off a cliff. Bang one wife in front of the other and two pick up lines and an arm pump later; everything's great again.
Dead Space has consequences without even trying. Aim poorly. Manage your inventory poorly. Get your face eaten. Those are consequences I can embrace.
I haven't traded in a game in years and I traded in Fable II yesterday and I haven't a shred of regret about doing so...which is surprising.
@bigdaddygamebot: I am with you. I don't want to be teh bitter internet fanboy here, but I really expected better of Fable 2. It added some cool new things, but it didn't fix ANY of my issues with the first one. Well, it let me play as a girl, so I guess that was an issue. But the design of the world- everything coded like a series of interlocking rooms rather than an open landscape- a worse main story, and incredibly shallow social interaction, and other issues drove me nuts.
It's on my shelf now, having beaten the main story and just stopped, and someday I will likely pick it back up, with SEVERELY lessened expectations (i.e. hardly expecting it to even be fun) and have a much better time. But it's not really much of an upgrade on the first at all. Fix the core issues before you add new features next time, Molyneux.
Dangeresque (Kojima-san doesn't have to make Metal Gear any more) was starred
Dangeresque (Kojima-san doesn't have to make Metal Gear any more) was unstarred
Unfortunately, more developers seem to be dumbing down their games to make a broader audience of players. The old Baldur's Gate, System Shock, Deus Ex, and Fallouts were mind boggling compared to game released today. Personally, I enjoy the amount of depth given to those games compared to the new ones, I mean who cares if the Baldur's Gate UI and HUD took up half the screen, it didn't joke around! And I mean in System Shock you could play arcade games in your inventory screen. Where is that in BioShock? Oh, that's right, we're too stupid nowadays to have an inventory screen.
My problem with "games are dumbed down" elitism is it inevitably ignores any evidence to the contrary to suit it's own needs.
For instance, Fallout is used as one of the original examples. The original Fallouts used fast travel with random encounters but the originals didn't actually allow you to roam the wastes as you can in 3, all of that area, with interesting things and people to find and encounters that tie in to the rest of the game is an incredible amount of depth that doesn't use a quest target and didn't exist in the previous versions but is utterly ignored by the elitist crowd because it doesn't fit their narrative that games are not as deep as they used to be.
@Xorrel: First, open world is de rigueur nowadays. Second, not all randoms were combat, especially the luck-based numbers.
Third, "didn't actually allow you to roam the wastes as you can in 3" is somewhat deceptive. F1, F2, & F:T all allowed you to roam, and discover either set towns or the luck-stat based random encounters. You just didn't do so as a blip on a screen.
I agree that the F3 "hey, what's over there!?" bit is fun (though it was present under the only system as well, and slightly cut back by the impression you couldn't go to the store in the Fallout work for a carton of milk without being asked by some random passerby to help find the Jabberwock). But I don't think this is a grand progression of depth.
In fact, it goes to the point that the elitists always have, in that the new version is primarily interesting because it's all shiny, new, and pretty. Walking around in the environment is much more attractive than the blip on a screen. But it's not that different in terms of the grand analysis for what's changed between the games.
@Ravel: Unique story? Uh.. it was basically your typical "pauper hero" story that has existed since before Star Wars popularised it.
I mean, there's some unique touches, but really. Evil tyrant in a tower that happens to be a world-destroying weapon. And it's up to a formerly homeless Chosen One to take him down.
@notquitedeadyet: I mean, spoilers for the first five minutes, but beyond that... you know all that stuff for 99% of the game. And HikariOblivion is quite right- I found the story quite unoriginal, with some interesting twists, but overall dissatisfying.
Dodging spoilers here, but the kicker at the end, to me, really was a kick, only in the face. It seemed to spit on everything I'd done, make it as though the hours spent on this quest had been wasted, and left me with a very bad taste in my mouth for the game. It's too bad, it wasn't a bad game... I just focused too much on the story, and the story was less than just uninspired- thanks to the ending, it was kind of insulting.
Dangeresque (Kojima-san doesn't have to make Metal Gear any more) was starred
Dangeresque (Kojima-san doesn't have to make Metal Gear any more) was unstarred
Login
Enter your username and password.
Reset Password
Please enter your email address to have your password reset.
Register
Registering will give you a user profile and the ability to add other users as friends. To become a commenter, however, you need to audition.
03/29/09
or, at the very least, BLACKTHORNE 2
seriously folks, two of the best games ever, right there
03/29/09
03/27/09
03/27/09
03/27/09
Or maybe an FPS? Though that's not their forte as of the moment.
I highly doubt it's a new MMO. I mean risking alienating or diving their WoW fanbase is not a very good move.
Or maybe it's a Guitar Hero MMO! Think about it! Activison wants money,Blizzard knows how to make money, GH makes a ton of money = that to Guitar Hero Online! Yeah I can see the dollar signs rolling in Activision's eyes!
03/27/09
[www.theonion.com]
03/27/09
03/27/09
[pc.ign.com]
Also, Starcraft II and Diablo III ARE different games even though they use the same engine. Trust me, I worked on games that use the same engine.
03/27/09
03/27/09
03/27/09
03/27/09
03/27/09
03/27/09
03/27/09
03/29/09
Screw that. Rock n' Roll Racing remake or Blackthorne!
11/09/08
On the other hand, my long-term favorites are music, racing, fighting and puzzle games because I love refining my skills at something, so even though I may be rerunning the same level with the same configuration, if I can shave a little time off or get a few more points, it means it's played out differently.
Yes, that's pretty much directly conflicting. No, I don't really have a deeper point about it. '_';
11/09/08
Dead Space has consequences without even trying. Aim poorly. Manage your inventory poorly. Get your face eaten. Those are consequences I can embrace.
I haven't traded in a game in years and I traded in Fable II yesterday and I haven't a shred of regret about doing so...which is surprising.
11/10/08
It's on my shelf now, having beaten the main story and just stopped, and someday I will likely pick it back up, with SEVERELY lessened expectations (i.e. hardly expecting it to even be fun) and have a much better time. But it's not really much of an upgrade on the first at all. Fix the core issues before you add new features next time, Molyneux.
11/09/08
11/10/08
My problem with "games are dumbed down" elitism is it inevitably ignores any evidence to the contrary to suit it's own needs.
For instance, Fallout is used as one of the original examples. The original Fallouts used fast travel with random encounters but the originals didn't actually allow you to roam the wastes as you can in 3, all of that area, with interesting things and people to find and encounters that tie in to the rest of the game is an incredible amount of depth that doesn't use a quest target and didn't exist in the previous versions but is utterly ignored by the elitist crowd because it doesn't fit their narrative that games are not as deep as they used to be.
11/10/08
Third, "didn't actually allow you to roam the wastes as you can in 3" is somewhat deceptive. F1, F2, & F:T all allowed you to roam, and discover either set towns or the luck-stat based random encounters. You just didn't do so as a blip on a screen.
I agree that the F3 "hey, what's over there!?" bit is fun (though it was present under the only system as well, and slightly cut back by the impression you couldn't go to the store in the Fallout work for a carton of milk without being asked by some random passerby to help find the Jabberwock). But I don't think this is a grand progression of depth.
In fact, it goes to the point that the elitists always have, in that the new version is primarily interesting because it's all shiny, new, and pretty. Walking around in the environment is much more attractive than the blip on a screen. But it's not that different in terms of the grand analysis for what's changed between the games.
11/09/08
You have to give them some credit for the blend of rpg with life-sim and the scale of what they made.
11/09/08
I also forgot to mention the uniqueness of the game in story and chracter, I can't see anything stereotypical about it.
11/09/08
I mean, there's some unique touches, but really. Evil tyrant in a tower that happens to be a world-destroying weapon. And it's up to a formerly homeless Chosen One to take him down.
11/10/08
11/10/08
Dodging spoilers here, but the kicker at the end, to me, really was a kick, only in the face. It seemed to spit on everything I'd done, make it as though the hours spent on this quest had been wasted, and left me with a very bad taste in my mouth for the game. It's too bad, it wasn't a bad game... I just focused too much on the story, and the story was less than just uninspired- thanks to the ending, it was kind of insulting.