This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Classic Theme
Thottbot Theme
General Video Game Discussion
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Thror
How were they? I am kinda thinking about picking them up.
And yeah, I did think that about the stretch goals too. I was thinking along the lines of, they want X extra money to have Chris Avellone, is it indicative of the payment he will get for the job? I incline towards believing that no. Which, by extention, makes all the stretch goals sound rather loose. I'd say motivational purpose is just about right.
I am really curious about what kind of a dialogue system they will use. The one in Wasteland 2 is not exactly what I would like in Torment.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
They are a solid B+ in my opinion. I dislike that the series is incomplete, but there's not much anyone can do about that. It's just that waiting for books is not something I do well.
There are people who disagree with me, but one of my biggest problems with PST is that you pretty much had to max out INT, CHA, and WIS or you missed half the game and amazing dialog. I do not want conversation stats (if they exist at all) to be tied to combat stats. I'll always pick the former over the latter, but it just doesn't feel very fun to have to do that.
Post by
asakawa
I give The Kingkiller Chronicles an A+. The title of the first really didn't make me want to read it but I'm so glad that a friend kept urging me to do so. I would highly recommend them.
Post by
Thror
Wow, I was just listening to some design VLOGs of
Project Eternity
. The system they use for abilities sounds really similar to D&D 4th ed. They have like, "per-encounter" and "per-day" powers on all classes and such. The thing I do not like much about the per-encounter system is that it feels very limitting in long combat engagements, but alright in short-to-medium length engagements.
WTB "per-day" ability that enables a character to reset his "per-encounter" abilities during an encounter.
There are people who disagree with me, but one of my biggest problems with PST is that you pretty much had to max out INT, CHA, and WIS or you missed half the game and amazing dialog. I do not want conversation stats (if they exist at all) to be tied to combat stats. I'll always pick the former over the latter, but it just doesn't feel very fun to have to do that.
Good point with missing half of the game, but I do not mind when conversation stats are in the same "pool" as combat stat. What I do think was an issue is that your Strength or Constitution could not be used as conversation stats.
In PS:T, you were forced to go INT/CHA/WIS because it was basically the cookie cutter build for obtaining best experience and for seeing all the amazing dialogue and writing that the game offered. I think INT/CHA/WIS should stay as valid conversation stats, but other stats should become valid conversation stats as well. So if you want to have some intimidating badass gameplay, roll STR/CON, if you want to be a sly bastard who uses sleigh of hand tricks mid-dialogue to fool others, go AGI/PER/CHA, and so on. I think Fallout: New Vegas has explored these other stats pretty well, even though it suffered from way too much focus on Science, Repair and INT (I am not mentioning Persuasion, because it is - by design - the overpowered dialogue stat.).
One of the biggest flaws of Torment IMO is that really important and interesting content, like doing the unbroken circle of Zerthimon, or upgrading Ignus, was extremely tied to INT/WIS. I can't imagine a playthrough where you only get to, like, the fifth circle of Zerthimon.
Also, I shall pick up the Kingkiller books then, thanks guys for your recommendations.
Post by
Nathanyal
Evoland
What an interesting game. As you play it you unlock different styles of game-play. It combines elements of Zelda and Final Fantasy. Goes from 2D side scroller to a 3D game.
And for $9.99 it seems like a good deal.
Post by
1069282
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Nathanyal
Well some of the more recent shooters have gone into a broader scale. And they actually have a story. Borderlands 1 and 2 are unique. The Mass Effect series is still at its core a shooter, but has a great story. Halo is a scifi shooter. Some of them have Zombies where you get to just kill zombies, such as the special modes in CoD or the games that are just about killing zombies, such as the Left 4 Dead series. And most shooters have some sort of multiplayer aspect that a lot of players jump right into, not even bothering to play the campaign.
There are a lot more settings for shooters too. You have some set on different planets, like Borderlands 1 & 2, the Halo and Mass Effect series. Some are set in the near future, revolving around a possible WW3. The Fallout games are about a post-apocalyptic world. And there are many more.
I'm not a big fan of shooters, but I do play them on occasion. I don't really like FPS games, but I do enjoy the occasional head shot.
Post by
Rankkor
Started playing the recent reboot of Tomb Raider. Wow..... just............... just wow.
I'll be writing a fully detailed review of it soon, but for the time being, let it be known, I absolutely adore that game.
Post by
1069282
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Rankkor
Started playing the recent reboot of Tomb Raider. Wow..... just............... just wow.
I see what you did there :D
I don't? seriously, no hidden message there. I played the newest Tomb Raider game, and event though I've never really liked much that saga, I'm damned impressed with this one, and hope to see a new franchise born out of it (Friends of mine tell me that the ending leaves open the possibilities of sequels.)
Well some of the more recent shooters have gone into a broader scale. And they actually have a story. Borderlands 1 and 2 are unique. The Mass Effect series is still at its core a shooter, but has a great story. Halo is a scifi shooter. Some of them have Zombies where you get to just kill zombies, such as the special modes in CoD or the games that are just about killing zombies, such as the Left 4 Dead series. And most shooters have some sort of multiplayer aspect that a lot of players jump right into, not even bothering to play the campaign.
There are a lot more settings for shooters too. You have some set on different planets, like Borderlands 1 & 2, the Halo and Mass Effect series. Some are set in the near future, revolving around a possible WW3. The Fallout games are about a post-apocalyptic world. And there are many more.
I'm not a big fan of shooters, but I do play them on occasion. I don't really like FPS games, but I do enjoy the occasional head shot.
So in the end shooting in different place and different guys and different time? Damn I have missed a lot (sarcasm).
Come on man, boil it down to differences in taste. I happen to enjoy good shooter games (they're not many, they're far too happy to copy each other, but every once in a while, one pops out that breaks the mold and adds fresh ideas or concepts to the worn out formula.)
Like everything in life, some people will like it and others wont. For example, I do not like sports videogames or racing videogames. I find them to be repetitive, pointless, and in the case of sports games, monotonous. But others enjoy them. Simple difference in taste.
Post by
Nathanyal
You first say that shooters are just about shooting, then I point out that some shooters actually have a story. Then you say shooters are mainly in WW1 and 2, and I give several examples where they are different.
No one said you have to enjoy shooters, but if you don't want to acknowledged that some shooters are about more than just shooting then that is your problem.
Post by
Interest
Welp.
For anyone who's played Melee...
Post by
1069282
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Thror
I don't get shooting games.
There is a lot of things you don't get.
Started playing the recent reboot of Tomb Raider. Wow..... just............... just wow.
I see what you did there :D
I don't? seriously, no hidden message there. I played the newest Tomb Raider game, and event though I've never really liked much that saga, I'm damned impressed with this one, and hope to see a new franchise born out of it (Friends of mine tell me that the ending leaves open the possibilities of sequels.)
He is obviously suggesting in jokingly manner that you are "wowing" at her boobs, since Lara Croft is (in)famous for her bust size. (I would bet he hasn't seen the new Lara Croft.)
Evoland
What an interesting game. As you play it you unlock different styles of game-play. It combines elements of Zelda and Final Fantasy. Goes from 2D side scroller to a 3D game.
And for $9.99 it seems like a good deal.
Saw a few first impressions vids. My impression is that the concept is original and interesting, but it doesn't strike me as a game worthy of purchase. It appears to be super linear by nature. You must advance through these points that "advance" your type of gameplay into a more modern style, they are unavoidable. There do not seem to be any choices that you can make and that would have any effect on the plot advancement or character development. It would be more interesting if you could, at some point, make a choice, that would make the game evolve into either a japan style RPG, or a western style RPG. And then choose whether the rest of the game will be fantasy or sci-fi. And then choose a genre which your game will be mixed with (strategy/action game/shooter for western, strategy/fighter for eastern) and so on. That would be too much to demand of a simple indie game though.
Also, it doesn't seem like a very long game. There are places where you can grind, and perhaps some optional content later in the game, but
Mike B
managed to get to "
3d graphics with HD textures
" in like 1 hour. It definitely feels like the focus of the game is absolutely set on the mechanic of
evolving game mechanics and graphic styles
, and everything else, like combat depth in any part of the game, the story, optional content, has suffered as a result.
Note that this post is based on roughly the first hour and a half of gameplay, and I do not have first hand experience, so take it for what it is. It is subject to change if I get some info that conflicts with what I saw/assumed.
Post by
Rankkor
Started playing the recent reboot of Tomb Raider. Wow..... just............... just wow.
I see what you did there :D
I don't? seriously, no hidden message there. I played the newest Tomb Raider game, and event though I've never really liked much that saga, I'm damned impressed with this one, and hope to see a new franchise born out of it (Friends of mine tell me that the ending leaves open the possibilities of sequels.)
Well look at the character... Thats all I say....
I did, I bet you haven't. Part of the reason I never liked the older Tomb Raider games, is that Lara was overly sexualized, there was almost no dept to her character, other than "Look, badass chick with 2 guns and a HUGE rack"
This new game however is a reboot of the franchise, showing a younger Lara, and the character underwent a complete redesign, where they pretty much desexualized her without making her grotesque or repulsive.
This is the new Lara
For comparison's sake,
Here is the old model (right) compared to the new model (left)
. I'd say I heavily approve of what they did there.
Started playing the recent reboot of Tomb Raider. Wow..... just............... just wow.
I see what you did there :D
I don't? seriously, no hidden message there. I played the newest Tomb Raider game, and event though I've never really liked much that saga, I'm damned impressed with this one, and hope to see a new franchise born out of it (Friends of mine tell me that the ending leaves open the possibilities of sequels.)
He is obviously suggesting in jokingly manner that you are "wowing" at her boobs, since Lara Croft is (in)famous for her bust size. (I would bet he hasn't seen the new Lara Croft.)
Pretty much this.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
I actually don't agree with the whole "big boobs = more sexual than small boobs" thing. Yes, it's a standing joke and male stereotype, and I'm sure there are plenty of men who do find large breasts attractive. I don't, and I know many men who don't. And playing the first hour of the new Tomb Raider and getting birds-eye shots down her tank top, I don't believe for a second they removed one iota of sexualization from that game, or at the very least they didn't reduce her cupsize for that reason.
I think it's more the fact that they modernized the sexualization. 10+ years ago, there were not enough polygons to make realistically attractive female models. The natural solution was to exagerate certain features (breasts and butt), and that's exactly what they did. With character models at the point they are now though, you can make hot, sexy female protagonist without exagerating features. And I would hazard a guess that most mature gamers in fact do find that more aesthetically pleasing and just plain hotter.
Post by
Rankkor
I actually don't agree with the whole "big boobs = more sexual than small boobs" thing. Yes, it's a standing joke and male stereotype, and I'm sure there are plenty of men who do find large breasts attractive. I don't, and I know many men who don't. And playing the first hour of the new Tomb Raider and getting birds-eye shots down her tank top, I don't believe for a second they removed one iota of sexualization from that game, or at the very least they didn't reduce her cupsize for that reason.
I think it's more the fact that they modernized the sexualization. 10+ years ago, there were not enough polygons to make realistically attractive female models. The natural solution was to exagerate certain features (breasts and butt), and that's exactly what they did. With character models at the point they are now though, you can make hot, sexy female protagonist without exaggerating features. And I would hazard a guess that most mature gamers in fact do find that more aesthetically pleasing and just plain hotter.
Well, I wasn't generalizing this, I was talking very specifically about Lara Croft, and in HER particular case, her character was just a hollow sexual icon. Nothing more. She had absolutely no depth as a character nor any defining characteristic other than her rack and her very skimpy outfit. She was made from the groundup as nothing more than fanservice.
It is true that a big breasted woman doesn't necessarily means a poorly written oversexualized object, after all Isabella in Dragon Age 2 has a HUGE rack and her design is pure fanservice, but she's still one of the most interesting characters in the party, and one of the most hilarious ones too. Why? because there's more to her than just her physical appearance.
Also regarding this bit:
And playing the first hour of the new Tomb Raider and getting birds-eye shots down her tank top, I don't believe for a second they removed one iota of sexualization from that game, or at the very least they didn't reduce her cupsize for that reason.
I've played well over 6 hours of the game, and I don't recall any birds-eye shots of her chest, or conspicuous close-ups of her butt, any sexualization associated with Lara is really gone, most of the time (Read: 90% of it) Lara is more or less getting a beating, or getting shot, or suffering really cringe-worthy wounds. On my current point in the game, almost 30% of her body is covered with scars (Gunshot on the arm, wolf-bite on the leg, gaping hole to the side of her abdomen after getting impaled on a piece of rebar at the very start of the game, stab on the gut, ankle torn up for steping into a BEAR TRAP, etc). Most of the time she's covered in blood or dirt, or both.
Any oversexualization that Lara had on previous games is removed here, unless you're into the "torture porn" like Saw, or Hostel, in which case I guess this game will be a huge turn on. But for the rest of us that are not into that, yeah, fanservice is gone, we can actually have a serious plot now.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
I'm going to have to disagree. I love the Tomb Raider series for the same reasons I love a similar series: Prince of Persia. Games don't have to be about plot, and just because they don't have a solid, coherent, or memorable plot, doesn't mean that all that's left is softcore porn. And adding a plot doesn't necessarily remove sexualization either.
I'm going to be completely honest: the new Lara Croft is eye candy to me (and probably more than a few others). And I'm damn sure Crystal Dynamics and Square Enix knows that. Did I only play the game because of that? No, just like I didn't only play the original games for it. I enjoy a great many things and beautiful women is one of them. And they made Lara Croft a beautiful woman. Exactly for that reason.
I don't think "fanservice" has gone anywhere. I think the medium has matured, the technology has matured, and I think people's expectations have matured: and that's why we have a beautiful, young, sophisticated Lara Croft growing up both physically and mentally in this game. Because that's the point in the road we've collectively come to, and that's what's hot (in more than one sense of the word).
I guess my overall point is this:
I don't see "fanservice" as a bad thing. I like sexy female leads. I wouldn't not play an ugly female lead, but that doesn't mean I can't enjoy the games that do have good-looking leads. Sexuality is a pretty enjoyable thing, and I play games to enjoy myself. So I look at the new Tomb Raider, and I'm like "hell yeah!" because she's awesome, sexy and kicks ass. Guess what I said to the old Tomb Raider? "Hell yeah!" because she's awesome, sexy and kicks ass. Guess what I said to the Prince of Persia? "Hell yeah!" because he's awesome, pretty damn sexy himself, and kicks ass. For me it's just one more aspect of the game. It's not good or bad on its own, and it's not limited to something like breast size.
Post by
1063203
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
1069282
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.