|
Perestroika posted:I've toyed around with No Man's Sky for a bit now, and aside from some broader complaints, the spaceship controls are just outright aggravating. The ship has some kind of mild autopilot, probably intended to keep you from crashing into stuff, but you just end up fighting the drat thing all time. When you're in a dogfight in space, it'll suddenly and randomly start pushing your nose in random directions, probably because there's an invisible space-gnat in the way. If you're low above a planet and want to check out a landing zone, it'll unerringly force your view back to the horizon so you can't ever properly see where exactly you're landing. NMS has by far the worst flight controls I've ever encountered. In space it's just basically random and in the atmosphere it's like trying to push a pool toy below water. The game 100% refuses to let you have any proper control over your ship below about 500 m, it's absolutely infuriating. You can't mine at surface level, you can't actually land yourself or properly plan where you're going to land, you can't do anything. And for God's sake why is there no yaw /rudder with a mouse and keyboard scheme? It's not like you can even rebind it, you get roll with a and D and whatever you would call the weird leaning moving crap with the mouse. How a game in development for 4 years built around the core ideal of space flight managed to gently caress it up so badly is mystifying. Descent got it right 20 years ago and a dozen single man projects like Rodina or House of the Dying Sun, which is fantastic btw, hit it out of the park with 1/100th of the budget and development time. All of the other flaws could be looked past if this part just worked, if it was just enjoyable to do the main, advertised focus of the game, but it's not. It could have been Flight Sim X in space but it's babbys first 6ish give or take a few DOF space game and it's a damned shame.
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 11:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 23:41 |
|
|
So much about No Man's Sky seems underdeveloped or half-baked. Luckily I can't have buyer's remorse over it because if these people think I'm gonna drop sixty loving dollars on an indie title that's basically pretty Minecraft with less to do, they've lost their goddamned mind.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 14:15
|
|
|
NMS looks like it may as well br Minecraft. I was hoping for something more like Elite, too. Is E:D worth getting?
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 14:32
|
|
|
RyokoTK posted:So much about No Man's Sky seems underdeveloped or half-baked. Luckily I can't have buyer's remorse over it because if these people think I'm gonna drop sixty loving dollars on an indie title that's basically pretty Minecraft with less to do, they've lost their goddamned mind. Yeah I was saying this same thing to a buddy this morning. I will pick up NMS when I suddenly feel a burning need to play Minecraft in Space. AND when it becomes similarly priced to Minecraft. (so around $25 usd) The multiplayer thing mystifies me completely, and the devs just sort of dodging the question makes it weirder. Did they really not think people wouldn't want to say "meet me at x, y, z coords and let's go exploring together" to their friends? Such a bizarre idea in TYOOL 2016 when most games have single player as an afterthought, not the other way around.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 14:37
|
|
|
Oh wait you can't do that? So the multiplayer component is exclusively naming poo poo?  Like people would still be playing Minecraft if there was no multiplayer. I really wanted to be excited for NMS because it looks like it would be a great chill-out game but everything I've heard makes it seem like they dropped every ball possible.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 14:45
|
|
|
Thing dragging No Man's Sky down: I can't read any posts about it without thinking something's not mind safe. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 14:55
|
|
|
I personally don't mind that No Man's Sky is exclusively single-player, because I hate that every other Hobo In Woods Simulator game is multiplayer-oriented. Sure, I get that for a lot of people that's a big draw for them, but I'm a person that enjoys single-player games far more, and while I like the idea of a game about survivalism and clawing our your way in a world I don't really like doing it with people. Especially since I'm Australian, and my experiences with Australian online gamers has been almost exclusively negative; it'd either be dealing with that, or dealing with interminable ping on a server people I know and like are. Some of those games have a single-player option, sure, but it's almost always an afterthought, a practice mode for online. Regardless of all other disappointments, right from the get-go No Man's Sky is trying to be a single-player entry into an almost exclusively multiplayer genre. And to that, I say: loving finally.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 14:59
|
|
|
It is a good chill-out game. I play it while listening to podcasts or when friends are over and we want to chat over something, like watching a really chill movie, except it's flying around space and looking at stuff. I don't give a poo poo about multiplayer - I've explored maybe two dozen planets and have yet to find anything that's even been encountered by another player, so it's not like meeting up with someone is likely. You couldn't coordinate locations either, unless you were already near the system you wanted to meet in. I just like exploring in it. Yesterday I found a giant fuckin' octahedron in space that gave me a mission in an uncomprehensible language (as I had learned maybe four words of it) and a waypoint. Later I found an anomaly in which a couple creatures that could, against all odds, speak my language told me some stuff. Then I landed on a planet and walked around without using my ship for a good thirty minutes, finding things and creatures and having fun. If you're looking for the next Elite Dangerous, you are going to have a bad time with this game. But unless you're expecting something it's not, it's alright. What's really poo poo about it is how frequently it crashes. This game is less stable than some brand-new PC releases I've played, and I've been playing it on the PS4. Oh, that and the pop-in, which is really, really jarring.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 14:59
|
|
|
AlphaKretin posted:Thing dragging No Man's Sky down: I can't read any posts about it without thinking something's not mind safe.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 15:27
|
|
|
My Lovely Horse posted:I accidentally abbreviated it with NWS the other day. A gender progressive No Womans Sky, if you will.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 15:38
|
|
|
So the aim of NMS is to buy it when it's a third the price and has three times the content? I noticed that Mankind Divided has a Season Pass. While I do have high hopes for the game it seems impossible to justify spending extra money on sight-unseen content. What are the worst excuses made for a Season Pass?
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 15:47
|
|
|
Inspector Gesicht posted:So the aim of NMS is to buy it when it's a third the price and has three times the content? Star Wars: Battlefront had a pretty bad set up. "Buy the season pass! You'll get this extra level, for sure, and then some other stuff... maybe... day... (content of 'other stuff' DLC to be determined at a later date) PREORDER NOW!"
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 15:58
|
|
|
well why not posted:NMS looks like it may as well br Minecraft. I was hoping for something more like Elite, too. Is E:D worth getting? Yes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 16:12
|
|
|
Inspector Gesicht posted:So the aim of NMS is to buy it when it's a third the price and has three times the content? The Doom one is probably one of the biggest season pass blunders I've seen in awhile, in that they seem to have completely bet against what people would enjoy and like more of from their game. I've heard the multiplayer is ok but not anything you'd actively seek out and the playerbase will probably be pretty small in short order so it just seems misguided. I've never felt they've been great value, only bought two at full price if I recall correctly and both times by the time the stuff had all come out the pass had gone on sale once or twice anyway.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 16:16
|
|
|
Tomb Raider. The presentation and the graphics and the voice acting and the animation is all really great. Top notch. Fantastic. But it annoys me that this is called "Tomb Raider," because it shares nothing with the classic couple games that launched this franchise save for the protagonist's name and the vague idea that you're venturing into caves and poo poo. I know, Tomb Raider had spent a long time being the poster child for awful ideas and even worse execution. It came around again with Tomb Raider: Legend, though. That game brought the franchise back with new graphics and a new engine and what felt like the new generation of Tomb Raider. But this game, oh, it is constantly annoying me. I grew up playing Tomb Raider 1, 2, 3, 4. My friends and I would gather around the computer and agonize over some of the puzzles. It has a lot of nostalgia for me. Plus, you know, we were like 11, 12, 13 in those years and we all kind of lost our puberty to Lara. This new Lara just looks like a normal girl.. Where is the cartoonishly proportioned Lara I remember? This is a minor complaint; at 30 years old I could give a poo poo if my on-screen avatar has a huge rack or not. I'm only marginally annoyed by it because it's another reason this game just slapped the Tomb Raider title on it. The biggest fault, though, is the single mechanic that defined Tomb Raider: the climbing! Tomb Raider was built on a blocky grid, and if you look at it now it looks like Minecraft. But at the time, you know, it was pretty sweet. Maybe we had to use our imagination a bit. But what was true back then and still true is that in those early games, you could climb on pretty much anything. It all sort of looked the same, but that helped articulate this mechanic; you learned by jumping and climbing around what Lara could and could not climb on. You could see that if the slope had such-and-such an angle it was no good. You knew if it was 90 degrees, you were fine. This allowed you to solve some puzzles in ways that were clearly not specifically designed for the task. Not to say the developers overlooked it, but they probably saw it and left it in, because you know what, being able to solve a puzzle in multiple ways is fantastic loving game design. Not in the new Tomb Raider, though. Oh boy, if you take one step off the rigid loving path the game built for you, you're either going to run into an Under The Dome style invisible nothing, or just instant death. Hey, how come I can fall 25 feet over here and take a little damage, but if I hope four feet down over here I instantly die? Oh, it's just because this entire world is a loving corridor with holographic walls giving you the illusion that there's a world to explore. There loving isn't. You know what else was great about the old Tomb Raiders? Leaps of faith. The game provided you with the tools to understand the environment and then it let you loose in it. There were sections where you could see that there was going to be an awkward jump, and if you missed you were going to die, but you could see that there was a ledge, and you could calculate that if Lara can jump this high and she jumps at this spot, she should be able to grab the ledge. And then you're rewarded with a feeling that you just solved a puzzle, or that you were confident in your understanding of the game to do this, that you had some skills at this game, that you were doing something. In the new Tomb Raider, you don't have to loving think for a loving moment. You can't walk off cliffs because an invisible wall keeps you from doing it. You know specifically where you can jump to because some helpful loving birds flew by and took a big white poo poo all over the specific spot that says HEY IDIOT HEY YOU loving IDIOT YOU CAN JUMP HERE OKAY RIGHT HERE DO YOU SEE THE BIG WHITE SPOT GLAD I COULD HELP YOU loving DUMBASS. But like I said earlier, with old Tomb Raiders, you learned by repetition; you learned that if you found this kind of ledge or texture you could utilize it. So, unfortunately I still have this mindset of puzzle-solving, rock-climbing old-school Tomb Raider in my head and so if I think, huh, okay, Lara can jump this high and she can climb on this ledge and, oh look, there's a ledge right there I can jump to but OOPS I DIDN'T CHECK FOR WHITE BIRD poo poo SO LARA CAN'T loving GRAB THE LEDGE BECAUSE THE DEVELOPERS DIDN'T PROGRAM CHOICE OR EXPLORATION INTO THE GAME, I'm really enjoying the game for what it is. It's a well executed linear thriller through a jungle. The cinematography is great. It's a fine game. But it pisses me off that it's called Tomb Raider. Tomb Raider you are not, god drat it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 16:23
|
|
|
Cleretic posted:I personally don't mind that No Man's Sky is exclusively single-player, because I hate that every other Hobo In Woods Simulator game is multiplayer-oriented. Sure, I get that for a lot of people that's a big draw for them, but I'm a person that enjoys single-player games far more, and while I like the idea of a game about survivalism and clawing our your way in a world I don't really like doing it with people. Especially since I'm Australian, and my experiences with Australian online gamers has been almost exclusively negative; it'd either be dealing with that, or dealing with interminable ping on a server people I know and like are. Some of those games have a single-player option, sure, but it's almost always an afterthought, a practice mode for online. You could give Don't Starve a shot if you haven't. I think it qualifies as single player-oriented by dint of not having had multiplayer at all for the first few years of its existence.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 16:28
|
|
|
Inspector Gesicht posted:So the aim of NMS is to buy it when it's a third the price and has three times the content? Not even both, one or the other would suffice. With how many top-quality indie games there are in the ~$20 range there needs to be a pretty compelling case to throw down $60 on an indie title, or really even an AAA title.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 17:55
|
|
|
well why not posted:NMS looks like it may as well br Minecraft. I was hoping for something more like Elite, too. Is E:D worth getting?
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 18:17
|
|
|
RyokoTK posted:Oh wait you can't do that? So the multiplayer component is exclusively naming poo poo? Yeah apparently people have found out thru data mining that you only connect to the servers when you upload names, otherwise you're in an isolated instance where it's functionally impossible to have someone else in your game. It's less dropping the ball and more directly lying about what you could do in the game e: looool scratch that the dude data mining has found literally zero signs of a multiplayer function ever having been worked on besides early test models for your player and ship, neither of which are rendered in game, if you'd even count that as something. Fans are back pedaling hard and pointing at them mentioning it ostensibly not being an mp game in a tweet 2 days before it was released, disregarding every other thing Hello Games ever mentioned about it. Xen Tricks has a new favorite as of 19:28 on Aug 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 19:24
|
|
|
I'd like NMS a lot more if you started with a better inventory. Instead there's drat near no space in the fucker.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 19:36
|
|
|
Len posted:I'd like NMS a lot more if you started with a better inventory. Instead there's drat near no space in the fucker. It's not hard to upgrade it. For the suit inventory, if you fly around a planet for a bit you'll probably spot one of these drop pods:  Inside will be a suit inventory enhancement giving you one more slot. The first time you find one, it's free. Every time after that, it increases by 10,000 credits. So the next upgrade costs 10k, then the next one is 20k, then 30k, and so on. Sometimes if you go to one of the Signal Scanners (the little round things with orange beams shooting out from them) and use a Bypass Module and search for a Shelter, you might get one marked on your HUD. There's no way to increase your ship's inventory slots, though. All you can do is either buy or find a ship that has more slots.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 20:09
|
|
|
Xen Tricks posted:Yeah apparently people have found out thru data mining that you only connect to the servers when you upload names, otherwise you're in an isolated instance where it's functionally impossible to have someone else in your game. It's less dropping the ball and more directly lying about what you could do in the game Heh. It keeps getting worse.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 20:28
|
|
|
credburn posted:Lots of words about old-Tomb Raider trle.net might tickle your fancy, there's still a surprisingly active modding scene for the PS1-era games (about half a dozen levels a month) and the best thing is that you don't need to own the original games, they're all self-contained .exes. I picked a random one from the hall of fame and it was pretty good, I really got the feeling that I was playing something that could have slotted into a Core Design TR. The only thing is that they're made for and by people who are still seriously into Tomb Raider nearly 20 years on so just like the originals, they can be loving hard with red herrings and jumps that need to be perfect. Thankfully, they all have walkthroughs.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 20:41
|
|
|
Xen Tricks posted:. Descent got it right 20 years ago and a dozen single man projects like Rodina or House of the Dying Sun Is Rodina good? I remember being excited about it when I first saw screenshots but don't know anyone who's actually played it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 21:01
|
|
|
Enter the Gungeon: The RNG in this game seems balanced in such a way that you're much more likely to get hosed over than have a viable run. The layout of every floor is randomized, and generally contains 2-3 chests from what I've seen. The quality of these chests is also randomized and of varying quality, going brown-blue-green-red-black. The last few runs I've done haven't spawned anything above a green chest all the way down to the final floor, and that's on top of having to hope that the game gives you enough keys and ammo to be able to actually open the chests and use whatever weapons you pick up for any considerable amount of time. Brown chests generally aren't even worth opening, so over and over you end up on the lower floors trying to scrape by with either your terrible infinite-ammo starting gun or something roughly as useless since the game just won't give you a break for the entire run. I'm not terrible at this game, but trying to kill the dragon on the final floor with nothing but a rusty sidearm and a handful of shots left on a regular crossbow is really unforgiving. Then on extremely rare occasions you get something absurdly overpowered from a black chest on the first floor which carries you through the entire remainder of the game. Roguelikes are generally difficult in similar ways, but this is the only one I can recall playing where you feel the need to run through first 2-3 levels using nothing but your starting pistol because the game is so stingy that you know you'll have to hold on to anything decent you find. The whole appeal of the game is that it has huge amounts of ridiculous weapons, and you never actually want to use them because ammo probably won't drop and you should try and save it for the harder stuff on a lower floor.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 21:06
|
|
|
I love Bloodborne and have played what must be several hundred hours of it since buying my PS4, but Yahargul and the Nightmare of Mensis are souring my friend on the game and it's sad to watch. Like all Souls games, they seem to have forgotten how to make videogames halfway through. Instead of balancing things out they plopped in a bunch of repeat enemies that do a million damage and said "there it's fine". If you have less than 30-ish vitality, you die in one hit from basically any attack- two hits if you're lucky. It just sucks because up until Yahargul the game is really good about enemy health vs enemy damage, but right at the end it jumps right the gently caress off a cliff. Generally the game is great about punishing failure in a respectful way but the last 2 main areas are basically Bloodborne telling you to eat poo poo and die trying.
CJacobs has a new favorite as of 21:42 on Aug 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 21:40
|
|
|
NoEyedSquareGuy posted:Enter the Gungeon: Seriously. I want to like enter the gungeon, but I am really not very good at it, and considering the gimmick of the game is the guns it seems ridiculously stingy with them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 22:12
|
|
|
Enter the Gungeon was such a disappointment. It kind of missed what made Nuclear Throne and Ziggurat fun -- when you have a zillion cool and distinct weapons, you gotta give them to the player because nobody wants to use the loving peashooter. The bullet hell aspect of the game is done well for the most part too, which is why the gunplay being so flaccid is even more disappointing. Roguelites are all difficult in their nature, but the challenge in a good roguelite isn't completely depriving the player of tools -- it's giving the player a random arsenal of tools that may not mesh well together, and seeing if you can scrap a win out of whatever you've got. RyokoTK has a new favorite as of 22:18 on Aug 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 22:16
|
|
|
I play it with CheatEngine scripts that provide infinite keys and give some kind of reward for every room and the game is INFINITELY more fun this way without becoming particularly easy or trivial. I highly recommend it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 22:46
|
|
|
It used to be even worse, the game originally had no guarantee of even giving you keys so sometimes you just plain would not be able to open chests. They patched that so that you always get a median amount of currency and keys per floor... but since it's all based on averages you still get hosed out of chests and store items on the regular. I really like Enter the Gungeon but goddamn the developers have no idea how to balance anything
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 22:48
|
|
|
Danger - Octopus! posted:Is Rodina good? I remember being excited about it when I first saw screenshots but don't know anyone who's actually played it. It's pretty good yeah, it's flight model is well thought out and has good, if difficult to master, controls. It's a very lonely game with not a ton going on besides exploration, finding relics and messages of the past, and fending off the Exos, at least from what I've seen, but it does it well. It's also constantly updated by a very very nice dev who seems to care deeply about his game and is quite connected to the community. There's a demo on his website if you want to try it, it's literally the full game with an hour and a half timer, so more than enough to check it out.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 23:00
|
|
|
CJacobs posted:Like all Souls games, they seem to have forgotten how to make videogames halfway through. You're not kidding. The Souls games and Bloodbourne are easily my favorite console games ever, but there are always these types of flaws that keep them from perfection. It's so frustrating.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 23:07
|
|
|
Yeah bloodborne gets ridiculously one shot happy in the chalice dungeons at depth 4/5, where a bunch of poo poo will instakill you or stunlock you for an effective instakill from full health, with 50 vitality and a health rune. It really makes all the flaws with the game stand out because it's frankly not tight enough to demand the level of perfection that it does once you go far enough into the optional content.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 23:13
|
|
|
Dark Souls 3 has a couple of weak areas but doesn't really tail off towards the end at all - Lothric Castle/Archives are fantastic areas with some of the best bosses in the game.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 23:15
|
|
|
Lt. Danger posted:Clem's issues with her parents is one of the main subplots of the season ya doof TBH, I feel a little disingenuous having posted about it, now that I'm thinking about it, because I just don't really like the basic formula of the Tell Tale games on a fundamental level. But yeah, it's just like, one of the first dialogue options come up, and I feel like I've put some thought into it after finding a clue, and the game just corralled me to where it wanted to go. I think I was in the mood to give a Tell Tale game a real shot, and it just rubbed me the wrong way. I'll keep playing it probably, just cause I paid for it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 23:23
|
|
|
SiKboy posted:Seriously. I want to like enter the gungeon, but I am really not very good at it, and considering the gimmick of the game is the guns it seems ridiculously stingy with them. It's the "weaker player" form of difficulty, which does not gel with the game's styling at all. This is clearly a game built for the "strong player, stronger opposition" difficulty method, but they missed the turn and hosed it up. Plus it does that stupid thing where enemies arbitrarily scale up their HP every floor in a game where shot counts matter. It just makes the guns feel weaker as you progress.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 23:27
|
|
|
Somfin posted:Plus it does that stupid thing where enemies arbitrarily scale up their HP every floor in a game where shot counts matter. It just makes the guns feel weaker as you progress. Oh god I forgot about that poo poo. It's not even palette swapping -- the exact same mooks just get more HP. It's the most asinine thing ever. If you don't get something good in the first couple floors, you're hosed because you're so far behind the curve.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 23:31
|
|
|
AndItsAllGone posted:You're not kidding. The Souls games and Bloodbourne are easily my favorite console games ever, but there are always these types of flaws that keep them from perfection. It's so frustrating. It's just a shame imo because Bloodborne opens incredibly strongly, and after a while it plateaus, and then it dips right at the end when it matters the most. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 23:37
|
|
Lunchmeat Larry posted:Dark Souls 3 has a couple of weak areas but doesn't really tail off towards the end at all - Lothric Castle/Archives are fantastic areas with some of the best bosses in the game. Aside from smouldering lake, I can't really say any entire areas of 3 were awful but it does have a lot of segments that just suck. Like for some reason they just really, really loved making your character slog through poo poo this time around. There were like what, two whole zones with swamps as the main focus, several other ones with large chunks of hard to avoid swampy areas. They also made blocking and parrying just feel pointless this time around. I think I spent most of the later boss fights just tanking things with charge attack invincibility frames and super armor. Also wearing heavy armor was really pointless given the poise change.  Oh and the covenants were probably the least interesting this time around because of how everything was so gear and level restricted, the only time you really saw any kind of action was near the end of the game. But by then everyone was so set into their optimal build it was basically like fighting the same two or three people forever. I still can't wait for that DLC though, I loved the dark souls 2 DLC.RyokoTK posted:Oh god I forgot about that poo poo. It's not even palette swapping -- the exact same mooks just get more HP. It's the most asinine thing ever. If you don't get something good in the first couple floors, you're hosed because you're so far behind the curve. Stat scaling for difficulty is some of my least favorite things. I get that they have to do it to some degree, but there's a point where it stops being fun. In Gundam Breaker 3 the enemies scaled so badly there was no reason to bother trying to play the higher difficulties single player because they had so much HP and armor it took like an hour to finish some stages just by virtue of having to burn down every single massive HP bar, I'm pretty sure some grunts even had more HP than the last boss of the normal difficulties. It was so bad they released a patch that basically cut their HP by 2/3rds so it doesn't take forever.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 23:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 23:41 |
|
|
CJacobs posted:It used to be even worse, the game originally had no guarantee of even giving you keys so sometimes you just plain would not be able to open chests. They patched that so that you always get a median amount of currency and keys per floor... but since it's all based on averages you still get hosed out of chests and store items on the regular. I really like Enter the Gungeon but goddamn the developers have no idea how to balance anything The other fix they put in is kind of janky as well. The store is now guaranteed to have at least one key in stock on each floor, but only if you haven't picked up any keys that have randomly dropped. This means that if one does randomly drop, you have to ignore it until you find the store, buy the key(s) there, then go back and pick it up. Also the store can be locked on occasion, which is bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 23:56
|
|