General Gaming Megathread: What are you playing?

Actually emotion as a mechanic IS the way to do it. Give those story points actual gameplay weight, don't just make them cutscenes and turn on the "FEEL THINGS" neon sign.
 
At least Amnesia had a practical purpose for it (the monsters stop being scary if you look at them for a while). And when you drained your "sanity meter", you had consequences such as your vision changing, or eventually dropping to the floor. In This War Of Mine, it just turns you from "Boris" to "Boris - depressed".

But, all the flaws considered, it was still good and I'd like to see more such games.

Did anyone here ever play Desperados: Wanted Dead Or Alive, or Robin Hood: The Legend Of Sherwood? What ever happened to such graphics? Despite all the progress in technology, I have yet to see an RTS that looks nearly as beautiful as these two.
 
Oh, absolutely, and that's one of the reasons A Machine For Pigs wasn't as scary (as well as a ham-fisted allegory), but it still bugs me out. Nothing worse than a game that's trying to push a feeling, immersion and then going YOU ARE SAD NOW, HERE IS A SAD FACE CAN YOU FEEEEL THE PAIN? TDD is still one of my favourite modern FP-survival horrors.

Anyhow, I'm still hammering away at Mad Max despite being on a deadline for reviewing. It's a really, really mixed bag. On the upside, most of the problems the console players are having with it are nonexistent on my PC that doesn't even meet the recommended requirements, despite all graphical settings set at max! =D

But yeah, it's alright. Max isn't written well despite how well the world is shoehorned in. He's always loved his car and his V8, putting it before others at times, but in this he's a bit of an asshole to some folks. He looks the part, and attention to his past injuries was given, but he doesn't sound it, and the way he speaks isn't really right either. Gameplay-wise, not much to write home about. Race-battles are exhilarating but only really if you play in first-person, and the typical races are tedious, normal cars having monstrously inconsistent, sometimes outright poor controls despite NPCs not having problems with it. It's also very unfocused. Eh. So far it's one of these games that has good focus to detail, but really struggles on the gameplay front. It is an open-world game, but there's a line that's kind of crossed in terms of missions and objective markers.
 
Last edited:
Walpknut said:
don't just make them cutscenes and turn on the "FEEL THINGS" neon sign.
Click to expand...
No, that totally works, too..... when done correctly. There are games that are MASTERFUL at eliciting the desired emotional response from their players, and purely by having cutscenes to do it. Granted, these are often reinforced by GAMEPLAY that helps players identify with characters. But the point is that the "turn on 'FEEL THINGS' neon sign" by way of cutscenes is a viable method.

Emotions as felt by a character should ONLY matter and be reflective of the player if it's a ROLE PLAYING GAME. Games that aren't ROLE PLAYING GAMES don't need the player to feel the same thing the character is, and too many players AND developers seem to be forgetting this. I'm not a homicidal sociopath when I play as Joel in The Last of Us, but Joel IS a homicidal sociopath. We identify with his fatherly side, even if we're not ourselves fathers, because we're bonding with a game character at the same time as his character is bonding with them. But the relationship isn't the same for us as it is to him. We're not assuming the ROLE of Joel, we're simply experiencing the world through the tiny sliver of perspective that he will allow us... in his very emotionally closed-off way. Likewise, I'm not feeling that sense of bravado and camaraderie when I play as the valiant hero of COD4, who dies amidst the radiation of a nuclear detonation. I'm playing the game while controlling that character, but I'm NOT assuming the role. I'm shooting things through his perspective, not living the world through it.
 
It's viable because is the easies and less effort needed way. Videogames storytelling is still on the same level as Young Adult fiction, and they refuse to actually take advantage of the interactivity of the medium in favor of just playing a pre-rendered video.
 
I took a break from all my serious games to finally beat Mass Effect 3, I regret it. And I felt better after finally getting around to playing
Barkley, Shut Up and Jam: Gaiden, Chapter 1 of the Hoopz and Barkley SaGa.
 
Walpknut said:
It's viable because is the easies and less effort needed way. Videogames storytelling is still on the same level as Young Adult fiction, and they refuse to actually take advantage of the interactivity of the medium in favor of just playing a pre-rendered video.
Click to expand...
It's not an easy way out, though, contrary to how you're painting it to be. Valve going through considerable studies so they can plan out the designs of their levels to showcase events where the players will usually want to look are at best an anomaly when it comes to video game storytelling. If you want to watch how characters act, there are no perspectives that show this off better than a forced perspective, otherwise there are serious incongruities with the scene. You can have the player character witness something, like Isaac Clarke witnessing Chalus Mercer do certain things in Dead Space, but unlike simply being a passive observer, when the character interacts with other characters, like Isaac Clarke interacts with Ellie Langford in Dead Space 2, half the time a cutscene is appropriate. Granted, DS2's style of cutscene differs from the "traditional" model in that the perspective still SEEMS to be in the same over-the-shoulder camera angle... only with the control temporarily removed from the player. But it's still a cutscene; it focuses on the important players of the scene so the game player can observe them, and given most video game models, this is important. A psuedo-ADD behavior always seems to take place in video games, and locking the player in for a few seconds helps them focus on what's important.

This isn't even new, as the "original" games did this all the time. When you stopped to talk to NPCs in Zelda, YOU STOPPED, and the text boxes blipped across the screen while you waited. It's not the same as a pre-rendered cinematic, but it accomplishes the exact same purpose: it takes control from the player briefly so they can pay attention to an important piece of information or character interaction. It's very hard (if not impossible) to predict the randomness of play patterns and to develop a game where character interactions can be observed without the player just wandering off and not caring. So for moments like those, moments when interaction is NOT the means of the scene but rather observation IS, a forced perspective works perfectly for the medium.

I'm not against interactive storytelling, I'm just painfully aware that it is HARD to pull off successfully. It's easy to say that games should be more interactive and less passive, but that doesn't make the actual task any easier.
 
I've been playing Far Cry 4 and Metro Redux on PS4. I've been taking a break from GTAV/O as there is fuck all to do in that game and I doubt the next DLC coming out for it is going to bring me back to it.

I'm currently two thirds done with the Far Cry 4 main story missions and then I'm going to complete the side quests. I'm Metro 2033 I'm fairly close to completing my second play through. Both are great games and I would recommend trying them if you haven't already.
 
Rayman: Origins. Awesome platforming fun. Easy to jump in, hard to master. It also has very charming visuals and the mood and feel of the levels change constantly which always keeps me interested. Truly a gem of a game.

Beyond: Two Souls. Story is not as good as heavy rain and it's pace is a little weird but you still have a lot of different encounters with interesting characters. It's pretty good overall.
 
Grandia 2 Anniversary Edition. Played the original DC version back in the day, grabbed the old PC version and played that something like 6-7 years ago, and have been itching for a replay recently. Unfortunately, the PS2 version was utter shite, so the Steam release was a godsend.
 
I've been playing MGSV quite a bit, but I think I'm growing tired of it. After the story wraps up (if you can call it that) the remaining side ops quickly lose their appeal. I can't help but think one or two large bases might have added a lot to the package. As it is most of the game takes place in wide open areas. I found myself wanting to play the other games as well since the story is so sparse. This is the least Metal Gear of any of the main Metal Gear games, so if anybody has kept away from the series due to whatever reason, this might be your chance to try it out. It plays very well. The gameplay is where this game excels.

In a series known for it's hour long cutscenes, it almost becomes disheartening to play through MGSV with such a drastic departure such as this; Snake barely speaks in this one, often letting Miller and Ocelot bicker back and forth with him staring off into the distance. Not to mention a rather anti-climatic ending that feels as if an entire chapter has been cut out. There is a lot of evidence that that assumption might be correct.

It must also be said that Quiet is one of the stupidest characters the series has ever introduced. The blatant sexuality of the character is actually hilarious in the sense that Kojima actually thought it was good. Ashamed of our words and deeds? Kojima you twat. The shit is ridiculous. Having a character prance about half naked is one thing, but the way they pull it off is so bad. She might as well start swinging on a pole while the Diamond Dogs throw money at her. The only other main female character is also practically naked. I'm the last person to complain about stuff like that, but it was blatantly obvious that that stuff was in there for guy boners.

In a lot of ways I am curious what someone else can do with the series now that Kojima is gone. I can't help but wonder what someone else might do. Bring Hayter back for one. The game was fine without him, but the reasoning for dropping him is utter bullshit. There was nothing in the game that warranted Sutherland to perform facial capturing as opposed to Hayter. That shit he said was just to blow steam up our ass. I can't remember the last time i have played a game this much (80 hours in a week) but I also can't remember the last time I have been let down this bad.
 
So then I guess MGSV is the game for me. I have never been a fan of the MGS series because of the cutscenes and story. Also I played the Gamecube remake of the first games first and the controls pissed me off. Will I be too lost if I get on to the game without having played the others even with the lower focus on story?
 
Walpknut said:
So then I guess MGSV is the game for me. I have never been a fan of the MGS series because of the cutscenes and story. Also I played the Gamecube remake of the first games first and the controls pissed me off. Will I be too lost if I get on to the game without having played the others even with the lower focus on story?
Click to expand...

Just play it if you don't care for the story. You should be able to figure out what is going on anyway. You can look at the summary for MGS3, Peacewalker, and Ground Zeroes if you need to. This is the most accessible entry in the series which also happens to be the most fun to play. If it had a better story (or more of it) it would truly deserve the 9's and 10's it got. As it is I give it a 8.5 or 9.
 
Ok then. It does look fun to play.
Saw a video of Quiet's model being replaced by Ocelot and it was hilarious, I can just imagine the level of fan service from that alone.
 
TorontRayne said:
It must also be said that Quiet is one of the stupidest characters the series has ever introduced. The blatant sexuality of the character is actually hilarious in the sense that Kojima actually thought it was good. Ashamed of our words and deeds? Kojima you twat. The shit is ridiculous. Having a character prance about half naked is one thing, but the way they pull it off is so bad. She might as well start swinging on a pole while the Diamond Dogs throw money at her. The only other main female character is also practically naked. I'm the last person to complain about stuff like that, but it was blatantly obvious that that stuff was in there for guy boners.
Click to expand...

Isn't the reasoning behind her that she breathes through her skin? I have to wonder, in a world filled with shit like mechs and other high tech gadgetry, do they really not have access to some sort of fine mesh material that would allow them to create a bodysuit that would let her skin to breathe while also providing some decent level of coverage for decency and protection? Honestly, in fiction you can do more or less anything as long as you maintain internal consistency, so yeah... guy boners it is.
 
The lack of a proper finale let me really disappointed, to be honest. The game is good, GOOD for real, but the fact it is more or less two third of the entire project is a shame.
 
So I have been watching playthroughs of the game and...
There is a Gundam in the game with pretty small feet?
Is that even normal for the series? I thought that even with the crazy science and psychic powers it was kind of worried about keeping it at least internally plausible as all the other Metal Gears I have seen had big feet to move around and they didn't have full on Humanoid movement and form.
 
Last edited:
It's pretty consistent in it's own bullshit continuity. As far as I remember the newest Metal Gear is partially controlled by Psycho Mantis at times.
 
It's just extremely jarring to me because the game has such a Super Cereal presentation and tone with child soldiers and shit and thenthey pull something straight out of the most shlocky Mecha Animu.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top