Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Keiseth]

Hi!

Woo, Deathworks is back! Anyway, I gotta be on topic occasionally:

I have to admit that I have a lousy track record as far as finishing games is concerned. Persona, Persona 2 Innocent Sin, and Persona 2 Eternal Punishment are probably the first games I really saw to the end.

I loved Persona's atmosphere so much, and the first person dungeons didn't bother me at all. On the other hand, the really, really high encounter rate followed by the exceptionally slow battle system drove me away. Maybe I'll try again one day, though.

I briefly tried Eternal Punishment, and enjoyed it. It solved what I didn't like about Persona; however, the atmosphere changed. Not for the worse or better, it just wasn't the same. Still wonderful though. Persona 3 is also a wicked fun game, that kept its predecessors difficulty...

...


I think my favorite type of games are ones that simulate a world that can grow with *or* without player action, and especially ones that do this for any amount of time. Dwarf Fortress is shaping up into that game, I think.

One of my favorite series is the Romance of the Three Kingdoms series; particularly the later ones (10 strikes me as the pinnacle of its genre.) Everything progresses no matter what you do, and the game doesn't require you to be anything at all. I once spent a game as a reclusive master in the mountains, solving small problems around my home city (like an occasional thief) or debating politics. Sometimes I'd even improve the city, or fight off invaders with my own personal army of volunteer soldiers. The most fun ever was leading them into a battle between a lord I liked and one I didn't, and joining in against his enemies. I turned the tide of battle at its bleakest point and was rewarded with a fortune in gold by the lord and an offer to join him with a good rank. The game did well in convincing you there was a world, living and breathing.

A game that grows like a simulation yet offers action and/or entertainment like one that doesn't is ideal. Especially a game that does this in an unusual genre, mixing free-roaming or empire-type gameplay with say, action. Something I always wanted to see was a sort of River City Ransom in an entirely non-linear city-sandbox, fighting or leading gangs around and all that. Some weird cross of genres that provide everything I'd like in a game.

That being said, I still play entirely scripted games, especially old ones, for the same reason I still read books. Some of my favorite games are entirely scripted: Terranigma, Cave Story and Baldur's Gate to name a few. They're just less fun every time you play them, unfortunately. The surprise and mystique works at full strength only once, unless you suffer from amnesia or have a really awful memory. I do, anyway. I've still played Baldur's Gate II enough to memorize half the dialog.

...

I'm entirely torn on the RPG / Chance / Stats vs Reflex / User Skill debate. On one hand, I love knowing that my failure or success was a direct result of what I put into the game. On the other hand, I love all the details an RPG system can keep track of. Some sort of balance is ideal for me; the sort where user skill can make a way out of no way, but luck can make someone who has no chance of victory ascend over their enemies in an epic Dwarf Fortress Ass-Kicking Baby way.

Graphics are completely optional as long as they're not just plain grotesque. By grotesque, I don't mean 8-bit color and 640x480 VGA. Or less-- I enjoyed Lords of Midnight extensively, and that game had like four to eight colors. I mean like, somebody took five minutes in MS-Paint to conjure up the visuals. I'm even an avid MUD fan, at times.

I'm gonna stop here before I Ramble On.

[Fenrir]

It's becoming an OCD thing for me, I need my music playing, no matter what, in the game

It's the same for me. If the music isn't playing, my ears start to ache a little, like they're straining to hear something that isn't there.

[Soulwynd]

And SoulWynd? i must disagree with your Quantity and Quality over graphics point
Although i agree with you that graphics aren't a big deal. I would MUCH rather fewer, more balanced, more polished weapons ETC than i would a million samey ones.

I know some people disagree. But I hate balance and lack of variety. Balance in games is a gamekiller to me. Life isn't balanced, nothing from the moment you take your first breath to the moment you die is balanced. Unless, perhaps if you believe in some god, karma, or santa claus. I'd rather have a choice between a dozen swords than to pick between a sword and an axe, both with supreme graphics and different gameplay.

I'd pick the sword if that was the case. Even if the axe was infinitely superior. That's what I like, that's who I am.

I don't twink either and people who twink do not bother me. I don't care about ending up with a nerfed design if it's the design I like. I suppose I try to twink that design the best I can, but that's my choice.

Choice earns $$$ from me. (Daggerfall)
Lack of variety becomes warez. (Oblivion)

[Virtz]

How come whether I hit that dude  or not depends on mathematical calculations, not the fact that the arrow hit right between the eyes?
(...)
EDIT: Oh, and unlike Soulwynd, I prefer to avoid RPG skills/stats where possible, as they ruin the elements of spontaneity/randomness, and also reduce the effects of the players gaming skill, instead depending on how much time he's spent fighting the same monster repeatedly. I do like the Final Fantasy games though, but they are the exception to the rule.

That's because you're playing a role-playing game and having your wizard who's crap at using a bow hit someone between the eyes just because you can do it thanks to your FPS skills would be pretty shitty role-playing. </master of the obvious>

Presentation is a different matter though. Where the arrow went could've been calculated mathematically rather than whether or not it hit. That's how a well coded game does it (Mount & Blade), having it fly through the target based on a hit/miss calculation is how a badly coded game does it (Morrowind, not to say that the game is bad overall).

[lambskin]

Lambskin: I'm curious. If you have a short attention span but love multiplayer, what games do you play?

I have a short attention span in that I play most games for a few days before never playing it again. Multiplayer increases that attention span for awhile. And for the games that I play? I'll play anything as long as it interests me. Right now I'm playing Elona and Cortex Command.

[Spud]

I know some people disagree. But I hate balance and lack of variety. Balance in games is a gamekiller to me. Life isn't balanced, nothing from the moment you take your first breath to the moment you die is balanced. Unless, perhaps if you believe in some god, karma, or santa claus. I'd rather have a choice between a dozen swords than to pick between a sword and an axe, both with supreme graphics and different gameplay.

I'd pick the sword if that was the case. Even if the axe was infinitely superior. That's what I like, that's who I am.

I don't twink either and people who twink do not bother me. I don't care about ending up with a nerfed design if it's the design I like. I suppose I try to twink that design the best I can, but that's my choice.

Choice earns $$$ from me. (Daggerfall)
Lack of variety becomes warez. (Oblivion)

I imagine i am seeing this from an RTS perspective. Although life is unbalanced. I am one of those peopel who hates to get 1 shot-killed from a stupidly powerful weapon. I think that balance is every weapon being able to be beaten.

Lets use your Sword - Axe comparison.
In this situation, you say the Axe may be much greater than the sword. Lets say, the axe does 7 damage and the sword does 4.

If the differences ended there, and all other weapons did around 4 damage, the axe may be considered "unbalanced" due to its much higher damage output.

Lets add a few more things. lets say, although the Axe does 7 damage, its attack speed is only 3
Whereas the sword, much more nimble, has an attack speed of 5.

In this case, the Axe will have a run for its money considering that the sword gets to strike almost twice before the axe can strike once.

In this way i want balance. I have NO problems with a weapon being very powerful, i just think that smart/ strategic play should ALWAYS beat pure brute force, if you get my drift.

So using a long range weapon vs a slow, close range specalist is a much better choice than throwing weak close combat people vs heavy close combat people.

For an RPG, i too would like 10 + swords. Like Diablo, with randomly generated ones. Even then though, there were only a few different sword types.

What i am saying is that to create many unpolished weapons CAN lead to game unbalance and damage the experience of the player.
 And like i said, 8-10 weapons is prime. If there are 8-10 of every type that seems more applicable to an RPG. FPS games are more about skill than stats anyway

I also dont see how "Balance" can be a game killer. I dont mean every weapon is equal, i dont mean Every weapon is useful either. but you have to have some type of balance otherwise a majority of people hog the best weapon and all other weapons become useless due to the widespread use of the most powerful weapons

[Soulwynd]

Well, in that case I don't recommend you play Operation 7 which, for probably being a korean game turned into an american beta, really caught my attention. It's a modern mmofps. One hit on the head is kill, always. I became really addicted to it. Maybe you shouldn't play S4 either, the sniper rifle charges and becomes one hit kill.

Of course, both games are based on player skill and not some fictitious character skill.

And perhaps, balance is in the eye of the beholder. I like games where a recently created noob can smack the veteran on the face. Specially in RPGs. That, for me, is game balance because everyone has the same chance of doing something even if it actually is unbalanced.

On the same note, I hate rock-paper-scissors schemes from RTS, I also hate the notion that if player A kills player B and players B kills player C, then A is stronger than C.

[umiman]

As a self-proclaimed expert RTS player, I beg to disagree. Depending on your RTS, and most people are quick to assume that the mechanics propelling Starcraft, Age of Empires, and Warcraft are the same as those running today's RTSes, your fortune on the field of battle can vary from your skill at diplomacy all the way to your strategic sense.

For games like Supreme Commander, Medieval, or Company of Heroes, there's no need to memorize unit stats or complex click-by-click strategies. You just need your wits and cunning and the ability to forsee your enemy's movements. The more complex the game, the more your chances of victory changes due to your own personal skill.

Just like an FPS, simply because you are up against 5 other enemies does not mean you lose. The chances are high, but your skill determines the victor. It's not as simple as rock-paper-scissors because a rock in real life can crush scissors, provided you know how to use it.

Try to avoid simple generalizations. It's the fastest way to lead to a flamewar. Soulwynd, please tone down your rhetoric. We're not trying to prove which genre is better. The purpose is to try and appreciate other formats of gaming. Same goes for you Spud. I know I don't have any moderator powers, but I'm sure you understand.

[Rilder]

For me a good game is a game that can allow me to play my way not push me down this specific line of storyline. Games like half life 2 and freespace are shit in my eyes, and I know i'm going to get flamed for saying that, but its what I think, they don't offer any freedom of choice, except maybe what weapon you use, thats not freedom in my eyes, in then end its like being followed around by a guy with a gun to your back telling you what to do. "but I wanna go fishing"  "SCREW YOU, YOUR GONNA DESTROY THE COLLUMBINE AND THATS THAT"

MMO's are fun to me though, as long as their not WoWlikes which all non-mmo players seem to think mmos are.  Eve is by far my favorite MMO, a game that allows you a great deal of freedom and allowing you to fight for something bigger then yourself, not follow a bunch of quests. Sadly I can't play EvE cause of graphics card issues.. 

Games like RTW:EB, Dwarf fortress, Sword of the Stars, and X3-Reunion (TC to much for my computer =/ ) are my favorite games, giving you a backstory and letting you loose. 

Despite my love of 4x and Turn based Strat games, I generally don't like RTSes, they are fun but RTS developers are often idiots who love forcing you through linear story lines if you don't want to play multiplayer or skirmish, skirmishes often get boring after the first couple times of DOING THE EXACT SAME THING, and multi player-wise the last time I had any sort of skill in an RTS was like in 2003 when I was a star trek fag and got quite good in Star Trek: Armada 2

[Soulwynd]

Try to avoid simple generalizations. It's the fastest way to lead to a flamewar. Soulwynd, please tone down your rhetoric. We're not trying to prove which genre is better. The purpose is to try and appreciate other formats of gaming. Same goes for you Spud. I know I don't have any moderator powers, but I'm sure you understand.

Try to avoid telling other people what to do or say. We were talking about likes and dislikes and you're the only one getting worked up about this. Take the explanation we gave as data for your gamer research.

He disagreed with me, I disagreed with him, we both explained why our tastes are different and that was it. If I read correctly, you also disagreed with me but for different reasons and nobody is annoying you. Except for now. But because you're telling me what to say. Which is not going to happen. Unless it was toady or his brother. But then they wouldn't get donations from me. I believe you get the point.

To be fair, I dislike RTS and the ones I know are pretty much rock-paper-scissors, and of course there's a great bunch of player skill involved in any game, but any gameplay that's based on rock-paper-scissors, be it from RTS or NOT, I dislike. Doesn't mean I wont play it. I played supreme commander (the free one, whatever the name was) online for a while. But it's not something that will get me hyped up.

MMO's are fun to me though, as long as their not WoWlikes which all non-mmo players seem to think mmos are.  Eve is by far my favorite MMO, a game that allows you a great deal of freedom and allowing you to fight for something bigger then yourself, not follow a bunch of quests. Sadly I can't play EvE cause of graphics card issues.. 

I'm a MMO player and I actually dislike both WoW and EVE. Because one is work and the other one is scam. There's an EVE thread somewhere where I explain myself about EVE and why people disagree with me on that, at least some people.

MMOs come and go for me. Most aren't sandboxy enough and most that are, have a real sucky game system that isn't fun to play at all and value payment time over simply letting people having fun.

I'm playing Anarchy online again, but I played City of Heroes for a long time. I really liked SWG after the crap they did got better polished. I still like Warhammer and plan on playing it again soon. I'm also in a couple alphas and in a few betas. I suppose I'm active in the MMO community and I know a few developers. *shrugs*

I get bored too fast.

[Spud]

Well, in that case I don't recommend you play Operation 7 which, for probably being a korean game turned into an american beta, really caught my attention. It's a modern mmofps. One hit on the head is kill, always. I became really addicted to it. Maybe you shouldn't play S4 either, the sniper rifle charges and becomes one hit kill.

Hmm. Perhaps what i was trying to say didnt get across.

I do enjoy Realistic games, and there is NO reason a one hit shot to the head shouldnt kill. My problem is when the Sniper rifle is consistently more powerful than an assault rifle in close range, say. In those games, im sure at least 75% of the time in close range an assault rifle beats the sniper rifle.

In this way, a player with an assault rifle would need to play smart in order to avoid 1 shot death. He must play stealthily and strategically in order to best the sniper.

If the Sniper beat the assault rifle in close combat 75% of the time, i might consider it unbalanced. Of course it varies due to player skill, but generally Assault rifle < Sniper at close range.

I play RO and CS:S, those games (Especially RO) are realistic and in the case of RO extremley annoying at times. but I do enjoy them.

Although in certian RTS's there is a rock paper sissors mechanic, i gravitate towards games where skill is victory. CoH has just this, as although Infantry are generally weak against tanks, good use of AT weapons and cover can guarentee victory against even the most powerful enemy vehicle.

Try to avoid simple generalizations. It's the fastest way to lead to a flamewar. Soulwynd, please tone down your rhetoric. We're not trying to prove which genre is better. The purpose is to try and appreciate other formats of gaming. Same goes for you Spud. I know I don't have any moderator powers, but I'm sure you understand.

Yeah, i dont really care what he is saying. We are comparing points, although as we go on i see our views converging. Im not sure what im trying to say is getting across however.

.:EDIT:.
I care what he is saying, but im not going to get worked up over it

[umiman]

Alright then. I'd like to keep this discussion going as long as it can. Though $10 says your arguments at this rate won't reach any form of positive conclusion as you refuse to see eye to eye on any matter... though it doesn't help for me to say that I guess...

In any case:

Rilder: Do you believe in too much freedom? Suppose someone made a game that was so perfect in every way that you could do everything, anything, and whatever you could possibly imagine. No goals, no boundaries, no score, nothing. Do you think that would make a good game?

[Little]

Yes. Besides the controversy, it'd be awesome.

[umiman]

I can't imagine it would be good though. Bear in mind I dislike games like Fantastic Contraption when I don't have a goal to work to... I need an objective to function.

Heh heh... I guess total freedom isn't my thing is it?

Could you try to explain why it would be good? Like, try to put the reason in words if possible.

[Deathworks]

Hello!

Okay, I can't resist going OT here a bit.

Keiseth: Are you playing the original Japanese versions or which versions of Persona? I have heard rumors that Persona 2: Innocent Sin is missing in the American release, making Persona 2: Eternal Punishment kind of confusing/meaningless. In order to understand Eternal Punishment you need to have played Innocent Sin.

As for atmosphere, I think Innocent Sin is best, followed by Persona and the least atmospheric being Eternal Punishment because of its focus on blood shed and violence.

I haven't played any of the other parts, so I can't comment on them.

Sorry about the digression, but the Persona series simply has a very special place in my heart.

Deathworks