|
Having enjoyed all the Witcher games a bunch, I just recently restarted 2 (And I'll likely do another run of 3 some time after) after a long ole time of not thinking about it at all and man, it's not renewed-ly surprising or anything but boy do I still really hate the side you're generally supposed to be on. Even in 3 all I could ever think is "Why do I want to oppose Nilfgaard again, the North loving sucks" and pretty much took every option to undermine the notable people of it. At least I got some satisfaction there in 3 when a chunk of my ending summed up like "And then Nilfgaard walked straight into Novigrad, put steel black boots to witch hunter skulls, then promptly bulldozed Redania."
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 09:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 15:01 |
|
|
In Soul Nomad and the World Eaters there's an unbeatable battle early on in the plot. If you're in New Game+ then it is possible to beat it, at which point you get a nonstandard game over because you just short-circuited the plot. (After the game-over you can continue into new game++, as if you beat the full campaign again)
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 09:43
|
|
|
Somfin posted:The well-implemented ones combine "you can't run," "you do like 1% damage," "they kill like 1d4 party members per turn" and "your party don't shut up when normally combat is silent." Lose two of those and I get nervous. Perhaps the worst example of this that I can remember was way back in Grandia 2. Early on you have a fight that you're supposed to lose, but you have to lose it in a certain way. If you just get all your dudes killed right away it's a regular game over, and you have to redo the fight from the start. Instead, you have to stay in the fight and keep wailing on the unkillable enemy until she decides to kill you with one particular move that will instakill your whole party, and only then does the game proceed as intended.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 11:42
|
|
|
Online shooters with vehicles that pair vehicle destruction tools with classes that are also best at killing other players (Planetside 2's heavy is a huge offender, only beating out BF1's assault by virtue of giving the class a shield that gives a 45% bonus to health) meaning every fight in a vehicle is 3 or more people just rushing you and firing rockets at you or running up to drop c4 or mines on top of you. If you kill them it doesn't matter, they'll be right back in 10 seconds to give it another go. And then on the other hand, when your teammates just don't want to bother giving enemy armor the same treatment. There is never an inbetween where vehicles don't feel like invincible/get out of jail free murder mobiles or metal coffins cause 1 person can delete 70% of your life in a second.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 11:57
|
|
|
Tiggum posted:I can see why they do it, but I kind of hate when a game has a fight that you can win but the game will carry on even if you lose, because if you're at a level where you might just about be able to beat it, you'll either finish the fight victorious but having used up all your resources or you'll lose and have just wasted a bunch of stuff. Either way you're usually better off to just reload a save and get yourself beaten as quickly as possible. Which is why World of Final Fantasy does it best: any time you die in battle, whether it's a forced loss or simply because you hosed up, you keep all spent resources. So you can use those mega potions on an undefeatable enemy, and if you realize that you're just supposed to lose, you've lost nothing but a bit of time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 16:29
|
|
|
Yardbomb posted:Having enjoyed all the Witcher games a bunch, I just recently restarted 2 (And I'll likely do another run of 3 some time after) after a long ole time of not thinking about it at all and man, it's not renewed-ly surprising or anything but boy do I still really hate the side you're generally supposed to be on. Even in 3 all I could ever think is "Why do I want to oppose Nilfgaard again, the North loving sucks" and pretty much took every option to undermine the notable people of it. At least I got some satisfaction there in 3 when a chunk of my ending summed up like "And then Nilfgaard walked straight into Novigrad, put steel black boots to witch hunter skulls, then promptly bulldozed Redania." Geralt may not really have a home, but he's still definitely from the North. It's something that comes up every now and then in the books and in the games. So for me personally it was natural to oppose Nilfgaard at every turn, and to insult their rear end in a top hat emperor who is also a terrible father whenever I could, knowing that the game wouldn't kill me for it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 16:51
|
|
|
Evilreaver posted:I always liked how Lufia did it. In the prologue, you fight and kill the four Final Bosses with four endgame characters, then timeskip forward, now you're a solo L1 JRPG protagonist. SURPRISE! Endgame boss is back! You get like 8 turns before the boss goes, hitting him for double-digit damage, then WHAMMO you take 4 digits of damage (on your two-digit health total). No mistake about that fight being unwinnable. In Lufia 2 there`s more or less the same exact situation with the same boss showing up early in a fight you`re supposed to lose, but if you beat him on NG+ (also possible on a first game but you need to plan ahead) you get his sword, which is super powerful that early in the game and can also be brought in the sorta roguelike dungeon sidegame where you normally start with no equipment.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 16:55
|
|
|
Nilfgaard in the game is pretty weird because they're apparently really, really hosed up in the books and their Emperor has a history of attempting to gently caress his own daughter - the same woman Geralt is looking for, and actively protecting. None of this is mentioned in the game so you get one set of conquering rapists against an army of raping conquerors, with none of the distinction Geralt knows about available to the player. If the Emperor's history was in-game I guarantee almost nobody would help Ciri back to the throne room.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 16:56
|
|
|
Books nilfgaard is basically eastern european war crimes - the nation. They also have full sexual equality by law, corps of trained psychics, and the white flame dancing on the graves of his enemies 
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 18:40
|
|
|
I really hate that in Project CARS there's an AI difficulty slider and moving it up or down isn't acknowledged by the game. The problem I have is that I did a series in a standard FWD car on 80% (pro) difficulty and smashed it. Didn't set up my car, didn't really know the tracks, didn't know the car, still won easily. Next up is an 80s GT4 series where I've set up my car for the track, I know the track like the back of my hand and I've practiced for about two hours and I can't get close to being competitive, my most aggressive lap executed perfectly gets me second last in qualifying. That just screams that there's a failure to refine the difficulty curve but I wouldn't mind so much if I could bump down the difficulty, get a 'you kind of suck but well done' trophy and come back later. The game doesn't acknowledge it so it kind of leaves me playing it ready to lower the difficulty whenever I come up against anything that causes me difficulty and the career-based singleplayer isn't really designed to let you come back to things once you're a bit better at them, you have to follow the event in order, no matter what. Offering different rewards for doing it on a higher difficulty would be great, I remember playing for hours to gold and then platinum things in Project Gotham Racing or trying to win things with lovely cars in Gran Turismo 4 for the most points. Also, the gap between first and last in any given difficulty is very small, I find I either win or come last. I loved it in the old ToCA days there was quite a distance between first and last even in races of only about 10 laps so even if I hated a certain track I could scrap for 10th instead of 1st and have just as much fun. Walton Simons has a new favorite as of 19:11 on Nov 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 19:01
|
|
|
StrixNebulosa posted:e: X-COM is a better example. Even once you have the special launcher and it's set up, welcome to micro-management hell. No, the buttons aren't labeled. Brazilianpeanutwar posted:I love the idea of playing the original X-com but all those menus and things to click and manage.....i'd have a breakdown in 5 minutes. If you're thinking of playing the original X-COM I would highly recommend using OpenXcom. Includes tooltips for battlescape buttons, Saving soldier loadouts, bug fixes etc. Much more playable on a modern PC.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 19:17
|
|
|
Speaking of XCOM, the thing dragging down the sequel for me is that its predicated on a "oh BTW you lost the first game" story, which is just anathema to any interest I otherwise could generate. I didn't play the drat game on the highest difficulty, with Ironman mode on, or any of the nonsense people used to generate e-peen and make the game more difficult than it needed to be.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 21:18
|
|
|
Honestly that's what interested me. It was different, as opposed to just aping the trajectory of the original games.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 21:57
|
|
|
poptart_fairy posted:None of this is mentioned in the game so you get one set of conquering rapists against an army of raping conquerors, That sounds pretty close to any real war in history.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 22:03
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:Speaking of XCOM, the thing dragging down the sequel for me is that its predicated on a "oh BTW you lost the first game" story, which is just anathema to any interest I otherwise could generate. I don't understand why that matters, really, who's playing an XCOM game for the story?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 22:29
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:who's playing an XCOM game for the story? It doesn't matter. The prologue games are so brutally hard, so challenging, that it feels like a real victory to actually win them. And then 2's just like, "none of that actually happened". You can't just say "well I don't care it's not about the story" when the entire reason the aliens even know how to fight XCOM in 2, story be damned, is because your super good play of XCOM 1 was actually them running a simulation so they'd know how to fight you. It's so irritating.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 22:34
|
|
|
Re: unwinnable (and "unwinnable") battles, there are a few in the Souls series. In Demon's Souls you have the tutorial boss Vanguard who you're supposed to die to, but if you kill him you face an actually unwinnable battle with Dragon God, an endgame boss. In Dark Souls, there's the Asylum Demon who you have to either run away from until you get better equipment, or tediously hack away at him with a broken sword (or kill him in new game plus). If you kill him the first time, you get his hammer. Also in Dark Souls is Seath, whose first battle is unwinnable but can be skipped, and who is invincible in his second encounter until you break his eternal life macguffin. In DS2 there's Vendrick, whose HP is so high as to be nigh invincible, until you obtain 5 giant souls and your damage against him is increased. I don't think DS3 or BB have bosses like this.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 22:36
|
|
|
The Lone Badger posted:In Soul Nomad and the World Eaters there's an unbeatable battle early on in the plot. If you're in New Game+ then it is possible to beat it, at which point you get a nonstandard game over because you just short-circuited the plot. (After the game-over you can continue into new game++, as if you beat the full campaign again) How is this a bad thing about the game? Were you expecting a full third route to be added to the game?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 22:42
|
|
|
SciFiDownBeat posted:Re: unwinnable (and "unwinnable") battles, there are a few in the Souls series. In Demon's Souls you have the tutorial boss Vanguard who you're supposed to die to, but if you kill him you face an actually unwinnable battle with Dragon God, an endgame boss. In Dark Souls, there's the Asylum Demon who you have to either run away from until you get better equipment, or tediously hack away at him with a broken sword (or kill him in new game plus). If you kill him the first time, you get his hammer. Also in Dark Souls is Seath, whose first battle is unwinnable but can be skipped, and who is invincible in his second encounter until you break his eternal life macguffin. In DS2 there's Vendrick, whose HP is so high as to be nigh invincible, until you obtain 5 giant souls and your damage against him is increased. I don't think DS3 or BB have bosses like this. yohrm is a puzzle boss that's a throwback to demon's but isn't done as well imo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 22:43
|
|
|
StrixNebulosa posted:How is this a bad thing about the game? Were you expecting a full third route to be added to the game? It's not a bad thing, it's an example of unwinnable battles handled in a fun way, which people have been sharing for the past page and a half or so.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 22:47
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:I don't understand why that matters, really, who's playing an XCOM game for the story? Personally, the story in games is what gives me the motivational push to keep playing them. WoW's raiding, D3's bounty mode, SC2's multiplayer, without some sort of story framework, I'm out sooner rather than later. Hell, I'm having a hell of a time finishing something as dry as Planet Coaster because I'm facing the fact that there's little left but the Sandbox mode. When it comes to XCOM2, there's no continuation from the first game (where I beat the aliens and they tell me something else is coming) so there's no motivation for me to play it. I'm not interested in playing some version of XCOM where the Player didn't bother reloading whenever someone died during the first war and/or didn't ultimately win. MisterBibs has a new favorite as of 22:53 on Nov 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 22:49
|
|
|
Every time MisterBibs posts I think he's being owned by a MisterBibs parody account that researched his posts and took them to their absurdist conclusion, but it's him every time
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 22:54
|
|
|
Action Tortoise posted:yohrm is a puzzle boss that's a throwback to demon's but isn't done as well imo. You mean Storm King right? Was he unwinnable without the Storm Ruler? That reminded me of a little pet peeve: why the hell doesn't Storm Ruler do extra damage against King of the Storm in DS3? I brought that into the boss fight specifically to own him but I guess From didn't think that far ahead.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 22:55
|
|
|
I was enjoying Soul Nomad, just running through the game doing the fights as I had heard that there was no grinding needed and you'd generally be fine - then I got to the third fight with that Loser Mage with the goat skull mask and he wrecked me because all his parties had 7+ characters per party and the most I could make were 5, so I got curbstomped. With no way to grind or do anything as I couldn't make any better rooms, I just stopped there.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 23:06
|
|
|
MrJacobs posted:That sounds pretty close to any real war in history. Careful, saying this is what made one of the game's writers flip out at people for being neo-cons. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 23:40
|
|
|
A couple of things in FF15 that only have to do with equipment are irritating as all hell are because they have been basic RPG functions for almost two decades now. 1. If I buy something, can you equip it to my guy right there on the shop menu instead of leaving the shop, equipping the new weapon, then going back to the shop and selling the old one? Why is this a thing again? 2. Don't let me sell something if it is already equipped. What the hell? This hasn't been a thing in almost any RPG I can remember. At the very least, ask me first. So far those are really the only glaringly obvious things, and they are tiny, but they have been so prevalent in past games that they threw me when I noticed them here.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 23:44
|
|
|
StrixNebulosa posted:How is this a bad thing about the game? Were you expecting a full third route to be added to the game? It's a good/fun thing. Slightly OT for this thread, but part of the conversation that had been happening.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 23:56
|
|
|
The Lone Badger posted:It's a good/fun thing. Slightly OT for this thread, but part of the conversation that had been happening. Ah, my bad!
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 23:58
|
|
|
SciFiDownBeat posted:You mean Storm King right? Was he unwinnable without the Storm Ruler? You can do it by just shooting him with a ton of arrows, which was how I defeated him the first time I played the game.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 00:11
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:Personally, the story in games is what gives me the motivational push to keep playing them. WoW's raiding, D3's bounty mode, SC2's multiplayer, without some sort of story framework, I'm out sooner rather than later. just accept it as it's own thing, your prejudices are ruining your enjoyment for no reason
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 00:22
|
|
|
SciFiDownBeat posted:You mean Storm King right? Was he unwinnable without the Storm Ruler? I just remembered him being a huuuge damage sponge w/o stormruler. it's better in demon's because all you have to do is swing it in the area where you find it to cause wind scar slashes and the fight is nice enough to have swarms of mantas to practice your swings on until the storm king shows up. stormruler in 3 requires you to dig through your inventory and then charge up the weapon art before you can activate it. also in its lore it's stated to be the best weapon against giants bit I've read from other goons that it does nothing to the Giants in irrithyll dungeon. Action Tortoise has a new favorite as of 00:26 on Dec 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 00:24
|
|
|
I can't believe I'm saying this but I'm kind of with MisterBibs on this one. It's a bit different in sandboxy games since you're basically constructing your own narrative as you go along, but even in games where the story is completely tertiary to the gameplay and overall experience I still prefer there to be something there to drive the gameplay forward and reward you when it's through. The thing I disagree about, though, is that the story in XCOM2 being predicated on the first one being an alien-run simulation being bad. I haven't played XCOM2 yet and didn't know about that plot wrinkle but that is loving awesome and I like that a lot more than the alternative, which is that we beat the alien menace back soundly and resolutely but then they came back again later and suddenly the world didn't have any elite badass troops that have blasted the poo poo out of dozens of starships worth of alien bastards.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 00:26
|
|
|
Boofchicken posted:A couple of things in FF15 that only have to do with equipment are irritating as all hell are because they have been basic RPG functions for almost two decades now. 1.I don't believe so, which is admittedly a bit of a pain in the rear end. 2.It doesn't, it's just conveyed really shittily. If you try and sell something already equipped it'll give you a prompt telling you to go unequip it first.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 00:33
|
|
|
starkebn posted:just accept it as it's own thing, your prejudices are ruining your enjoyment for no reason I accept its its own thing, "Nothing you did in the first game matters! The God of this series was a bad player who didn't reload his game!" is a terrible selling point (almost as bad as  was) for me, serving to actively disinterest me from picking it up.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 00:49
|
|
|
You seem personally upset about this it's kind of weird.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 00:49
|
|
|
Except it does matter because the Commander being able to hold on for so long before getting trounced and hooked up to the aliens' system is the whole reason the resistance risks so much to break them out and lead the uprising. Hell, the reason you "fail" is because you're actually betrayed and handed over by the world's governments as a peace offering. Taking it as an insult against the player is pretty weird.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 00:51
|
|
|
MisterBibs finds clicker games too convoluted
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 00:55
|
|
|
poptart_fairy posted:Except it does matter because the Commander being able to hold on for so long before getting trounced and hooked up to the aliens' system is the whole reason the resistance risks so much to break them out and lead the uprising. What part of "Not interested in playing a game that posits the Commander of the first game as incompetent" do you fail to understand? If I wanted to watch the bad ending of an XCOM game, I'd go on YouTube. I'm not upset or insulted by it, it's just something that prevents me from being interested in it. When your story borrows from Mortal Kombat 3, of all games, I'm not interested.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 00:57
|
|
|
Devdisigdu posted:If you're thinking of playing the original X-COM I would highly recommend using OpenXcom. I think it's just one of those games I prefer to watch people play, especially when everything goes to poo poo at a critical moment, that's why beaglerush's xcom vids were so good, he was pushing against the game and the game was pushing back. (his newest xcom 2 videos suck though, that game looks so bad even he can't be bothered) Brazilianpeanutwar has a new favorite as of 01:01 on Dec 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 00:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 15:01 |
|
|
MisterBibs posted:What part of "Not interested in playing a game that posits the Commander of the first game as incompetent" do you fail to understand? poptart_fairy posted:Hell, the reason you "fail" is because you're actually betrayed and handed over by the world's governments as a peace offering. At least understand what it is you're complain-...gently caress. Bibsed again.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2016 01:00
|
|