General Gaming Megathread: What are you playing?

UncannyGarlic said:
I've also noticed that the TF2 skill curve has plummeted with the free to play thing, granting me amusement when I plat for the first time in months and top a server.
Click to expand...

Was playing yesterday and noticed that, then again a lot of the more experienced players were mucking around as well, for instance one just kept spy checking the entire base including the walls for the hell of it. :P
Then again you really shouldn't be able to mosey into an enemy base on 2fort and grab the flag without seeing a single turret or guard.
 
I haven't played the first game so I can't compare. Enemies have attack radii so you try to avoid it or, for enemies with different attacks, aim for the radius you want. You also can destroy different parts of enemies and get different drops for doing so which means where you attack and how you combo will effect that.
Click to expand...

Yeah I saw the attack radius thing, and I'm not sure how well that works until I'll actually try it. From the vids I've seen it looks like the enemies don't move or move very little, which'd make some battles kind of boring.

Here's a short vid of first game: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Id3DC2LakHc Same general idea, but no moving around and just based on the initiative.

Then again you really shouldn't be able to mosey into an enemy base on 2fort and grab the flag without seeing a single turret or guard.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure why, but I just can't enjoy CTF in TF2. Maybe it's TF2's CTF mode that's boring, maybe it's the maps that aren't great, or maybe I've had consistently bad games, I don't know. It's just nowhere as good as CTF in UT99, the game that introduced me to the CTF mode. Perhaps there's really nothing out there that can match the thrill and adrenaline of CTF-Face.

As for bad players, bloops like what you mentioned happen occasionally, but then again that makes one side win the game in a flash, teams rebalance, people ragequit, new people join, and the situation normalizes more or less. In any case, imo that's much less annoying than being stuck on a team with, say, 4 snipers and no medic.
 
Installing Medieval II: Total War with Kingdoms.
Got any mods to recommend? I plan on installing Third Age mod, so any other one?
 
Played Shogun 2 and got bored...but from overplaying, the game itself is awesome.

And now I have to kill 234346456 monsters in Icewind Dale.
 
Thinking of doing another playthrough of Baldur's Gate 2, and I am hesitating between a Mage ( possiblya Wild Mage, they sound fun) and a Sorcerer, any BG vets can tell me if there is a real difference in gameplay?

Other than that, still playing Company of Heroes. It's incredible; I bought it for 19$ and played the shit out of it for two years and a half, yet the 50$ I paid for Starcraft 2 have been sitting on a shelf since last October. I just adore the gameplay so much.
 
A mage has the fun of collecting and scribing spells, which is nice if you enjoy that scavenging experience. If you've already done that, you can get all the spells you will ever need with a sorcerer. They get crazy powerful if you use the de-nerfed spell progressions in the G3 tweak pack.
 
Not having to find/buy and scribe scrolls is the main different between the two. Everything else is pretty much exactly the same. Sorcerers are more geared towards vet players though, lest you pick the wrong spells for a particular level and are completely fucked because you can't scribe new ones. This requires you actually have a pretty good knowledge of the game and how the spells work/what you need so you don't handicap yourself.

Wizards do gain XP from scribing scrolls though, which is cool.


Gah, beaten by seconds.
 
A wild mage has the extra fun ability to do weird things with spells, which can be quite ridiculous at low levels. At ToB levels, they rrely ever fail though, and they just get completely OP because of that "morph spell" thing.
 
I think I will go the Wild Mage way, I liked collecting scrolls as I went. The BG2 magic system kinda grew on me (especially at high levels where you can use impossibly powerful spells, there's more of a progression than in most traditional mana systems). That said I still dislike the memorization and 8 hour rest aspect itensely, and it seems the Sorcerer gets more spells per rest to use, and I kinda know which spell is good, mostly by experimentation (Breach, Abi-Dazim, Summon Planetar and Time Stop being almost essential to winning in TOB with Ascension installed, that final battle was haaard).

Possibly I will end up solving it like other character creation related issues. Where's my flipping coin?
 
what I always loved about DnD in particular was the way magic was actually explained. I mean when reading about those characters which are beyond the level of mere mortals. It seems that level 10, 20 and 30 (which goes somewhat in to the range of powerfull deities) are braking points. Though with spells past level 30 it seems like they have incredible power. Things like creating whole towns just out of magic or changing reality and such things. I always loved that about the DnD games. That it seems there is always more then what you see around you.
 
That said I still dislike the memorization and 8 hour rest aspect itensely, and it seems the Sorcerer gets more spells per rest to use,
Click to expand...

It's been a while since I played an AD&D title, so I don't quite remember how it's there, but here's how it is in 3.5e: sorcerers get more "spells per day", but spell level progression is slower, and selection of spells is more limited. Sorcerers are good at spamming the same few spells over and over, while wizards are good for versatility.

Example: at lv5, sorcerer gets 6/6/4 spells per day, and knows 6/4/2 spells per level, meaning he can cast level 2 spells four times, out of the grand selection of 2 spells. Wizard on lv5 gets 4/3/2/1 spells per day, and can learn all the spells (in AD&D limited by INT iirc). So, wizard gets less casts on each spell level, but is always one spell level ahead of sorcerer. In 3.5e wizards also get bonus feats while sorcerers don't, but I can't remember if that holds true for ad&d.

I'd say sorcerers make good specialized attack or support mages, while wizards are more interesting to play.
 
Ausdoerrt said:
I'd say sorcerers make good specialized attack or support mages, while wizards are more interesting to play.
Click to expand...

In PnP this may be true (depending on taste), but in BG2 there simply aren't more than 3-5 spells on any one level that you'd ever want to use.
 
In PnP this may be true (depending on taste), but in BG2 there simply aren't more than 3-5 spells on any one level that you'd ever want to use.
Click to expand...

True on lower levels as well as extremely high levels, but I remember the middle being pretty versatile. That said, you're right, I'm basing my judgment on TOEE which is a game I know a lot better, and it's as close to RAW as any cRPG ever got.
 
Ausdoerrt said:
Yeah I saw the attack radius thing, and I'm not sure how well that works until I'll actually try it. From the vids I've seen it looks like the enemies don't move or move very little, which'd make some battles kind of boring.
Click to expand...
Enemies can only move when you move or a set amount after you attack (so that they can counter attack) and some move far more than others. Where you attack also matters for weak spots (I think) and for the items that you can cut/break off of them (tails, shields, carapaces, etc.). I'd wager that you'd like it if you liked the first one and they removed the time limit, assuming that matters at all.
 
Sounds like a weird adaptation of the RPwP idea. I do like the sound of part-targeting and how you described item-collecting.

Well anyway, it's been on my list of games to play for a while, and I'm just starting to work on the PS2 backlog since it's only recently that the emulator has become more or less fully playable. I also want to re-play VP1 before that for fair comparison (also kind of curious since I never finished first time through), but it's pretty short so shouldn't take too long.
 
Atomkilla said:
Installing Medieval II: Total War with Kingdoms.
Got any mods to recommend? I plan on installing Third Age mod, so any other one?
Click to expand...

Eras Total Conquest is quiet nice, it adds different starting times to the game, and new different factions for each era.
Stainless Steel, it fixes a lot of bugs, makes the map larger with more regions, and more factions.
Long Road, basically makes the game longer with more turns, it adds many many more features, I think it adds a couple of factions as well.
 
Thanks guys. I'll check those mods, one by one, see which one I like the best. Quite a lot of them are there.
I'll browse their features later, but before I do that, I have to ask you - does any of the mods (one of those you listed, or some other) add Serbia as a faction? I hate that in both Medieval games, Serbia (and other countries in the region) possessed some, well, quite large territories at the time, but they are completely ignored in both games.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top