- Files: GIF, JPG, PNG, Maximum:1000 KB, Thumbnails: 600x600 pixels
- Currently 2210 unique user posts. View catalogue
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]
Posting mode: Reply [Last 50 posts][ Reply ]
974 posts omitted. Last 50 posts shown.
Expand all images.
|>>|| No. 19768
I figured I'd make an /e/ equivalent of that great, big /beat/ thread.
Recently I have been slogging away on XCOM: Enemy Within with the Long War mod. Humanity is doomed as I'm simply incapable of holding back the torrent of battleships the aliens keep hurling at me.
It's bloody fun though.
|>>|| No. 22492
RDR2 might've been a game I'd have bought a new console for when I was a teenlad, but these days I don''t really get hyped for linear, cinematic games. It just serves as a reminder that what you're basically doing is watching a movie with mini arcade game style interludes to shoot the baddies. I'm really into westerns so I'd definitely still find it fun, but it could be so much more. On top of that, I'm not really keen on supporting Rockstar's sheisty practice of releasing games on consoles first, knowing full well that many people will double dip and buy it again when it's released on PC.
What I really lament is the death of the first person RPG. Games like Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines and Fallout: New Vegas did a great job of combining all the choices and consequences you'd find in old school isometric RPGs with the immersiveness of the first person perspective and voiced NPCs. Nowadays, every developer wants voiced, pre-defined, 'cinematic' characters, which always takes away from the roleplaying. Sure, we've still got plenty of great isometric RPGs being released these days, but the fact that the best new RPGs are the same kinds of RPGs they released in the 90s is a bitter pill to swallow.
|>>|| No. 22493
I much prefer well designed linear games over open ones. Open ones just end up bland, I don't care about two or three 'choices' you make affecting it, I'm not the dude, I'm a player.
|>>|| No. 22494
Bland if you are talking about the main quest but the gist is that the open ones aren't as much about the main quest as they are about the game world and lore.
I don't even think it's fair to compare the two, they are different beasts really, about different things.
|>>|| No. 22495
I've found I feel much better immersed in a well built atmosphere and story like Dead Space than in psuedo randomised crap like Skyrim or Fallout.
|>>|| No. 22496
I loved RDR1 and bought RDR2 on opening day - never fall for the pre-order shit. I love it. It's a "slow" game, the first couple of hours is a bit of a walking simulator as you do missions on rails that show you how to do things. Once you get to the truly "open world" bit out of the snow, it is very playable. I find it more of an old-school adventure game with a bit of third-person shooting thrown in.
Played it all last night until about 4am. Going to try not to do the same today....
Graphics: truly amazing - a great demo of what a modern console can do. Controls: bit hard to get used to, have accidentally shot some characters in the face when I meant to talk to them.
It'll easily be my game of the year, given Battlefield V's continually shifting delivery date. If you liked RDR1, then the second version is an excellent evolution for modern consoles. If you didn't "get" this game first time around, I'm not sure you will now.
|>>|| No. 22497
Stellaris; 4X 'grand' strategy - S'fun but you're pretty much in for the long haul. Starting any new game feels like a project. I've taken to writing notes at each save so I can remember just where I'm at and what I'm doing on my return. The retracted content, later to be sold as DLC, is really noticable too. Fucking £50 there abouts for all the features.
Darkwood; top-down survival adventure (i guess?) - The scenes are pretty cool, setting very atmospheric. I've enjoyed it a lot but there's just something about the looting - especially dying - that turns me the fuck off and kills any enjoyment I've had of the game.
Pretty half arsed reviews there but whatever.
I'm fast realising that gaming is losing it's 'escapism' for me - the moments of catching a glimps of my reflection in the dark monitor are becoming more and more frequent. I've posted about it before, I'm posing about it again. Climbing trees is more fun. Making things is more fun. but I'm still looking for the next game that'll hopefully help me forget myself for a moment.
|>>|| No. 22498
>never fall for the pre-order shit
People say this all the time but I don't even understand what pre-ordering is. Like back when you bought physical media from a shop I can understand reserving a copy so they don't run out on release day. But that's not an issue with digital distribution so what on earth is the point? It boggles my mind.
|>>|| No. 22499
It's to get more money out of you sooner. Also they do silly things with in-game content and balancing and spew some BS about "player choice" when they make the same content available to everyone else via endless grinding.
Apparently publishers do this because they want all the money in the world. Given how massively profitable the big names are, there's really no other sensible explanation for them trying to make even more.
|>>|| No. 22500
Plus they need a backup plan for when loot crates are eventually banned as unregulated gambling.
|>>|| No. 22501
It's surely about customer retention also. A person's desire to buy something might cool to the point where once the game is out they'd not overcome the inertia of inaction and make a purchase, but crucially not to the point where they'd cancel their preexisting preorder.
It's analogous to free trials.
|>>|| No. 22502
It gets people to buy the game based on all the previews telling them how awesome it will be, before their friends or the handful of honest game reviewers can tell them how shit it is.
|>>|| No. 22503
>I can understand reserving a copy so they don't run out on release day. But that's not an issue with digital distribution so what on earth is the point? It boggles my mind.
When I pre-ordered RDR2, my Xbox downloaded most of the game immediately, despite this being a few weeks before release. If you're itching to play a game at midnight release, then I can see how that could appeal. I personally like to have the digital version as it's just easier for me, and I knew 100% I was going to buy the game so I thought I might as well pay for it earlier. I'm sure there was probably some preorder bonus in there, I didn't check because I really don't care. I think I might have got a free horse or summat.
I don't particularly think preordering is a great idea, but certain games like Red Dead, Fallout, Elder Scrolls, that sort of thing, I know I'll be buying it so I see no reason not to do it on Xbox marketplace a few days early so the game's ready at release. I might just be killing the games industry, and it makes little sense as I didn't exactly play RD at midnight on release, but fuck it.
|>>|| No. 22538
Battlefield V today. I'm going to be up until at least 5am.
|>>|| No. 22539
I've been playing RDR2 today and trying to do some hunting to get the different satchels. I have struggled with the controls in places, because some of the buttons are context sensitive, I've had L2 held down to give my horse a pat after getting off my horse and punched my horse instead. Later on I accidentally started choking a bloke instead of getting on my horse because my character was focused on the stranger talking to me.
|>>|| No. 22540
Ehh. I got it last week, I loved BF1 but this one just isn't clicking with me yet.
I think it's the maps, and player visibility. They seem to favour long engagement distances, and with spotting removed I find myself just fucking sat squinting at a load of very pretty grass and then dying to a player I couldn't see. I mean if you're going to remove spotting, you need to give the player models a silhouette and palette that doesn't blend in with every single other texture in the game.
I've started enjoying it more with adjustment to a slow paced, cautious playstyle like the "hardcore" mode in previous games, but only about half the maps really work for that. The others leave you too exposed to do that, or force you into the open in order to reach objectives.
Very hit and miss. Wish I'd waited for a sale honestly, but I jumped the gun considering how good the last one was and assuming the pre-release hate was just nerds whining.
|>>|| No. 22542
Interesting - I'm sort of the opposite.I loved BF4 and played it for days on end - BF1 never grabbed me in the same way, but after a couple of hours I am enjoying V a lot.
|>>|| No. 22543
> I mean if you're going to remove spotting, you need to give the player models a silhouette and palette that doesn't blend in with every single other texture in the game.
I sense your annoyment but that's kind of the point of camouflage.
|>>|| No. 22545
This. A lot of games have gone towards the 'you actually have to look for enemies' trend, presumably because people seem to enjoy it in PUBG and so on.
I enjoy it, but I've always been into the competitive side of FPS games and have been playing ranked CSGO for half a decade, so I suppose I'm the wrong person to ask.
|>>|| No. 22546
Yeah, I mean I kind of sense it's an intentional design decision, and admittedly I've enjoyed being a sneaky bastard for huge kill sprees on a couple of occasions. But like you I grew up with more arena type shooters where player visibility and overall map readability were the primary concern.
It's Battlefield, not Arma, it's never been a simulator- So part of me honestly just wondered if it was really shitty design rather than intent. Like when old school shooters went through that difficult transition about ten years ago, where everything had so much blood and brown they had to put bright colour skins over the top of your normal one just so you could tell who was who.
I'm not a fan of Battle Royale at all either, so I feel like part of it has been geared to that audience and I don't care for it.
I'll like it better when I get good.
|>>|| No. 22547
Some of the maps are horrendous I've found, that fucking mountain map.
I've got used to looking for players now, most of the time I have to look for tracers. Hit detection still seems as fuck as it always has been, regularly get killed in a few shots yet can shoot a guy 30 times and they run round the corner.
I think I still prefer BF1 though, just seems a lot more smoother and cleaner. I miss my mini tank too.
|>>|| No. 22548
I used to play APB, and I made my character dress in fluorescent green and use only non-lethal weapons. Partly because I didn't want to take it too seriously, and partly because each time I took someone down I enjoyed imagining their shame at losing to my self-imposed handicap.
|>>|| No. 22549
While I'm on the subject, can I just lament about APB. It could have been an amazingly original cops-and-robbers simulator, and it has been developed into a generic team-based shooter.
|>>|| No. 22555
Been enjoying Far Cry 5 the last few days.
I never did get on with 3, though playing it on the 360 may have had something to do with that.
|>>|| No. 22556
It's better in PC, but it's impossible to remove the motion blur completely.
I've made the decision recently to not buy games from AAA publishers that have aggressive monetisation in any of their games, which means I've missed out on a few games that I hear are great FC5 being one of them. The one that galls is Spyro. I feel like that game is targeting me specifically, because Acti knows I wont buy their games anymore.
"C'mon, it's a wholesome remake!" is how it starts.
|>>|| No. 22557
Can't say I've noticed any heavy monetisation in FC5.
You CAN buy Silver Bars with real money, but it never really pushes them in your face, and never once have I felt a need as the world is so full of piles of cash that have been left around you can afford everything through just playing the game.
As i'm aware, Spyro is just the complete package, no add ons or buyable stuff. Albeit you only get the one game on the disc and have to download the others two.
|>>|| No. 22558
Which AAA publishers do you support then? I'm struggling to think of any that don't use aggressive monetisation.
|>>|| No. 22559
Nintendo and Capcom are the only two yet to introduce loot boxes in their games, which limits what I can play and where I can play it.
FC5 doesn’t have aggressive monetisation mechanics, but other Ubisoft games do. If they do it in one, I wont buy any of their games.
It’s introduced me to the cesspit that is indy games on Steam, though. Few gems on there, all is not lost.
|>>|| No. 22561
Fair enough then.
And don't remind me ArmA/OFP. I used to call it 'the simulator of getting shot from who knows where'.
I admit that it was proper fun when you're the opposite side, lying on the hill beside some bush and taking accurate shots from M21 at the troops running below.
|>>|| No. 22585
It's a fantastic spiritual sequel to Rollercoaster Tycoon 2, with some extra management elements (mostly to do with staffing and stockign your stores) and building tools that are simple and flexible.
Only big complaint is there's currently no backwards-building on coasters, and other minor niggles are mostly to do with coaster building but it's mostly solid.
|>>|| No. 22590
>'the simulator of getting shot from who knows where'
PUBG has taken on that mantle.
|>>|| No. 22591
I've been mucking around with the CS:GO battle royale mode.
It's very good. From what I understand they've been working on it for a very long time, it's pretty well polished compared to just about everything else. It's a smaller game, only 16 people per match, so it's a lot less tedious and they've done some clever things with the map and how you can get weapons.
CS:GO is also free to play now, and anyone who previously bought the game has 'prime' membership which I'm sure is something useful or good but I don't actually know.
|>>|| No. 22592
> CS:GO battle royale mode
And what's the bloody difference compared to the usual 5v5? Or is it just a ten to fifteen year old last man standing DM mode from AMX/AMXX plugins?
|>>|| No. 22593
Do you not know what a battle royale mode is by now? It's not even a little bit like defusal.
You get dropped into a large map and have to find weapons as the playable map area slowly shrinks over time. The CS:GO twist is a useful map that tells you if an enemy is in a map quadrant (haven't seen another BR that does this) and you can also have weapons airdropped to you using a buy menu like classic CS, but it takes time for a drone to bring your item over. It's also 16 players per game instead of more commonly large BR numbers of 100 or so.
I'm not sure why you're so aggressively cynical when you could have just read the bit where I said
>From what I understand they've been working on it for a very long time, it's pretty well polished compared to just about everything else.
But never mind. Doesn't sound like you have any intention of playing it anyway.
|>>|| No. 22594
>The CS:GO twist is a useful map that tells you if an enemy is in a map quadrant (haven't seen another BR that does this)
Darwin Project. This one also has a human "director" for each match that can communicate with all the players, control the battlefield and award powerups.
|>>|| No. 22595
Seconded. It's a very different experience to other BR games, with a lot more action and some really meaty tactical gameplay. The desperate shortage of ammunition makes camping a total waste of time - you have to get out there and chase resources from the off.
Protip: the delivery drones track your tablet, not you. You can set up some hilarious ambushes in the late game by ordering a box of ammo and dropping your tablet.
|>>|| No. 22596
This, plus it's undeniable that the CS/source engine FPS experience is very different to most, mechanics wise. Anyone who has mastered the art of crouch jumping up a set of boxes has an advantage, though not a huge one.
>Protip: the delivery drones track your tablet, not you
That's amazing, I didn't even think about trying to drop the tablet.
I did do the fantastic 'pretend your pistol's a flash grenade' pro strat earlier for my first win.
|>>|| No. 22598
I just noticed that Total War: Empire, Napoleon and Medieval 2 have just had all their DLC given out for free. I think the only bits I didn't already own were Empire and Napoleon's secondary campaigns, but by Jove I love the smell of black powder in the morning, even if they do seem like the least popular games in the entire series according to everyone else. The naval battles are truly awful, I'll cop to that.
Also, while I'd like to give Counter Strike: Global Offensive: Danger Zone a go, I've never been very good at the twitchier end of the shooter market and many people, even some in this thread, have been playing CS for so long I'm always hopelessly out classed. However, I do like the idea of it and it seems like Valve have tried something slightly different, despite a lot of people dismissing it immediately. I understand Valve haven't done much for their public image over the last few years, and that card game they're working on looks like a bit of a rip off, but it is F2P after all so you can hardly accuse them of being greedy buggers.
|>>|| No. 22599
>I've never been very good at the twitchier end of the shooter market and many people, even some in this thread, have been playing CS for so long I'm always hopelessly out classed.
I'm really rather good at CS and was in the highest rank for a while when I played religiously - the good thing about CS and just about all of it's game types is that it's just as much about being in the right place and remaining undetected as it is about aiming. There's only so much practice any normal human can do on headshot flicks and the like, if you can aim for the head and control recoil even a little bit, you have a fighting chance.
I'm sure I'd be able to reliably beat you on one of the classic maps I've been playing forever, because I'd just know exactly where to go and which corners to shoot at. But I guarantee you have just as much of a chance as I do in an unknown map, or the new one on Danger Zone. If you get the drop on me I'll still die, if I miss the headshot and you don't I'll still die.
I'd also say that CS isn't quite as twitchy as your COD's and such - you don't gain anything by jumping all over the place like a distressed salmon like you see most people do in those games. The nature of how accuracy and spray patterns work in CS means you're more rewarded for controlled bursts while crouching or standing relatively still. I'd recommend trying it, I think you'll enjoy it if you're interested. If I'm wrong then I apologise.
>However, I do like the idea of it and it seems like Valve have tried something slightly different, despite a lot of people dismissing it immediately.
It seems like people who don't play CS:GO are dismissing it because it's Yet Another Battle Royale, though apparently some of the mode's assets have been found in the game files as early as last year, so they haven't rushed it out cynically.
And the existing CS:GO community is angry primarily because Valve has given everyone who previously bought the game a free Prime account, which before now was obtained by playing the game to a certain rank and keeping your 'trust score up', meaning you were a good, honest player by a few metrics - good teamwork, not being a hacker, etc. Everyone with Prime status could choose to match up with only other Prime players, which was an effective way of keeping you playing with good players. The concern is now that everyone has Prime who owned the game, and you can just pay ten quid to get it now, Valve has invited the russian hackers and mic spammers back into everyone's lobbies.
I don't think it's going to be as much of a problem as they make out, as Valve have also increased the weighting your trustability score has on matchmaking. Plus, anyone who is serious about the game typically plays on paid servers such as ESEA as they offer better tickrates than Valve servers, amongst other things.
|>>|| No. 22615
> Do you not know what a battle royale mode is by now?
I do and the first thing that pops up in my mind when I see BR and CS together is Slavic CSDM MEAT servers. 16 to 32 players on a map, every fool for himself.
Those were largely implemented by AMX/AMXX plugin engine, that's why I asked if the 'official' mode differs and what are the differences.
I have no idea why you'd think I'm cynical and/or aggresive about it.
> Doesn't sound like you have any intention of playing it anyway.
True. Just a pinch of mild interest.
|>>|| No. 22626
It's always annoyed me a bit that some of the most open and modable games still on the market are overwhelmingly contributed to by creators that make hyper-detailed nude mods and tittymonsters.
And I don't even know what drives it. Does it count as a fetish? Sure it's nice to look at boobs, but you can do that in tons of games. They're all so hilariously tasteless and plastic too, it's hard to believe anyone derives any actual sexual gratification from any of it.
You don't get many games that touch Fallout for romping around a post apocalypse yet thematically authentic feeling mods are fairly thin on the ground past big expansion projects.
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]