1100 réponses à ce sujet

[android654]

Tirigon wrote...

android654 wrote...

Also, guns are so superior to swords or magic. If you've played Max Payne, Red Dead Redemption, Stranglehold, Borderlands, or Hitman, then you would know you can make art out of shooting people.

No they are not.

I admit I havent played most of the games you mentioned but I HAVE played Borderlands and it was the worst piece of sh!t bastard of shooter and RPG I ever saw..... I wouldnt even have played it at all if not for my brother bothering me to play Co-op, which was about the only good thing I can say about it.

Anyways, shooters and RPGs just dont work together. Shooters require you to be able to 1-shot kill everything with a headshot, in RPGs damage depends on skills, stats etc.... which honestly is bad enough even with swords, but completely unbearable with guns.

RPG's and guns don't mix? Alpha Protocol, Fallout 3, Fallout New Vegas are three of the best RPGs ever made. All of them require you to build your stats in order to shoot and build your stats in different weapons in order to use them with proficiency. You can't just pick up a gun in any of those games and be perfect with them. You can;t even pick it up and be good without investing points into those classes. And Borderlands, it sounds like you didn't give it a chance. There are literally hundreds of combinations you can make with different firearm pieces and classes. It may be weak in story, but as far as class system and weapon customization, Borderlands is at the top of the list.

[android654]

termokanden wrote...

android654 wrote...

I love Bloodlines too, but it's not Cyberpunk and it's not about people on the bottom of the social ladder. Even as a Nosferatu, you're a vampire so you're automatically higher than most of the planet's population. So it's hard to feel bad about any of the vampires in the game when they run a shadow government that runs the world. That being said, it's a Gothic story, and as someone who used to run in that crowd I know that's it's actually very lively and isn't without it's humor. So yeah, it's dark, but only because it's goth. The majority of the subject matter itself was never intended to be dark.

I never claimed it was cyberpunk but I think it's a clear example that a game can be dark without being depressing. The presentation just lightens it up because it isn't one sob story after another.

Sure it's not the darkest game ever, but if you don't think it's dark then I guess we don't agree about the definition.

Just because the story deals with death and sex doesn't mean it's serious. Hell, there are disney movies that deal with those topics. Masquerades was clearly intended to be fun in a Gothic setting, but it's not dark. There are very few dark games that are serious about their subject matter.

[Aeowyn]

AdamJenson wrote...

Aeowyn wrote...

The same can be said about shooter games...

Why should a "modern" or near future or future/sci-fi game be a "shooter"?  I'm not talking shooter.

I liked the fairly high uniqueness of ME because it was sci-fi, NOT all wizardy and warriory.  My Shepard wasn't "grizzled", he was a pretty normal military type.  I COULD have done without the spillover from the typical fantasy genre, however (biotics ARE the same as wizards or mages in fantasy games - that is just plain magic right there but in sci-fi clothing).  

As for my namesake and DEHR, he wasn't "grizzled" either...just an ex-cop doing corporate security who gets swept up into something MUCH bigger than he bargained for or expected.  I like that.  

In any case, ALL stories are trope.  All stories have been told before in ways that have been done before...some have just been done WAY more than others (*COUGH!*wizards!*COUGH*swordsman*COUGH*some kind of "dark spawn" magicky thing spreading*COUGH!).  More of the former, much less of the latter thank you.  With a cherry on top.

And not ALL fantasy games HAS to be about magic and wizards. A simple political game set in a medieval setting would work just fine.

[AdamJenson]

Tirigon wrote...

android654 wrote...

Also, guns are so superior to swords or magic. If you've played Max Payne, Red Dead Redemption, Stranglehold, Borderlands, or Hitman, then you would know you can make art out of shooting people.

No they are not.

I admit I havent played most of the games you mentioned but I HAVE played Borderlands and it was the worst piece of sh!t bastard of shooter and RPG I ever saw..... I wouldnt even have played it at all if not for my brother bothering me to play Co-op, which was about the only good thing I can say about it.

Anyways, shooters and RPGs just dont work together. Shooters require you to be able to 1-shot kill everything with a headshot, in RPGs damage depends on skills, stats etc.... which honestly is bad enough even with swords, but completely unbearable with guns.

Have you ever been shot in the head?  One shot is all it takes, often even if you have a ballistic helmet on (depending on the rifle) and even if not, CONCUSSION!  Maybe even TBI.  You don't get to take 20 or so rounds to the body either.  Sure, there are things that HAVE to be done to make a game playable/fun (like medicine or magic to rejuvinate you when you are injured) or most games would end very quickly for you in the very first fight, like as soon as you stood up from behind some cover.  BLAM.  You're deaders.

Modifié par AdamJenson, 30 mai 2012 - 04:51 .

[termokanden]

I will agree that there are too many games out there in generic fantasy settings with no real ideas of their own, but that doesn't devalue all fantasy somehow.

android654 wrote...


Just because the story deals with death and sex doesn't mean it's serious. Hell, there are disney movies that deal with those topics. Masquerades was clearly intended to be fun in a Gothic setting, but it's not dark. There are very few dark games that are serious about their subject matter.

Strawman. But I don't think we'll agree on this anyway.

Modifié par termokanden, 30 mai 2012 - 04:52 .

[AdamJenson]

termokanden wrote...

I will agree that there are too many games out there in generic fantasy settings with no real ideas of their own, but that doesn't devalue all fantasy somehow.

We'd just like to see LESS of that genre and more of the ME-DE sci-fi/speculative fiction genre.  Personally, I prefer more realistic speculation and NO magic (no wizardy magic, no space magic).  

[mupp3tz]

6 minutes, my friends. SOON!

[AdamJenson]

Aeowyn wrote...

AdamJenson wrote...

Aeowyn wrote...

The same can be said about shooter games...

Why should a "modern" or near future or future/sci-fi game be a "shooter"?  I'm not talking shooter.

I liked the fairly high uniqueness of ME because it was sci-fi, NOT all wizardy and warriory.  My Shepard wasn't "grizzled", he was a pretty normal military type.  I COULD have done without the spillover from the typical fantasy genre, however (biotics ARE the same as wizards or mages in fantasy games - that is just plain magic right there but in sci-fi clothing).  

As for my namesake and DEHR, he wasn't "grizzled" either...just an ex-cop doing corporate security who gets swept up into something MUCH bigger than he bargained for or expected.  I like that.  

In any case, ALL stories are trope.  All stories have been told before in ways that have been done before...some have just been done WAY more than others (*COUGH!*wizards!*COUGH*swordsman*COUGH*some kind of "dark spawn" magicky thing spreading*COUGH!).  More of the former, much less of the latter thank you.  With a cherry on top.

And not ALL fantasy games HAS to be about magic and wizards. A simple political game set in a medieval setting would work just fine.

But that could work in ANY setting.  You could set it in the 1800s, the 1700s, the 2300s, contemporaneously...there's nothing there that demands leather and chainmail.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Cyberpunk doesn't appeal to me sadly.

[android654]

termokanden wrote...

I will agree that there are too many games out there in generic fantasy settings with no real ideas of their own, but that doesn't devalue all fantasy somehow.

android654 wrote...


Just because the story deals with death and sex doesn't mean it's serious. Hell, there are disney movies that deal with those topics. Masquerades was clearly intended to be fun in a Gothic setting, but it's not dark. There are very few dark games that are serious about their subject matter.

Strawman. But I don't think we'll agree on this anyway.

If anything it's a fallacy on your end. Few things are presented in that game with a sense of seriousness. The use of gore and horror is always underlined with a sense of humor. It's a lighthearted story. It essentially did for Gothic fantasy what Grand Theft Auto did for crime dramas.

Modifié par android654, 30 mai 2012 - 04:57 .

[Aeowyn]

AdamJenson wrote...

Aeowyn wrote...

AdamJenson wrote...

Aeowyn wrote...

The same can be said about shooter games...

Why should a "modern" or near future or future/sci-fi game be a "shooter"?  I'm not talking shooter.

I liked the fairly high uniqueness of ME because it was sci-fi, NOT all wizardy and warriory.  My Shepard wasn't "grizzled", he was a pretty normal military type.  I COULD have done without the spillover from the typical fantasy genre, however (biotics ARE the same as wizards or mages in fantasy games - that is just plain magic right there but in sci-fi clothing).  

As for my namesake and DEHR, he wasn't "grizzled" either...just an ex-cop doing corporate security who gets swept up into something MUCH bigger than he bargained for or expected.  I like that.  

In any case, ALL stories are trope.  All stories have been told before in ways that have been done before...some have just been done WAY more than others (*COUGH!*wizards!*COUGH*swordsman*COUGH*some kind of "dark spawn" magicky thing spreading*COUGH!).  More of the former, much less of the latter thank you.  With a cherry on top.

And not ALL fantasy games HAS to be about magic and wizards. A simple political game set in a medieval setting would work just fine.

But that could work in ANY setting.  You could set it in the 1800s, the 1700s, the 2300s, contemporaneously...there's nothing there that demands leather and chainmail.

Except that the use of leather and chainmail was normal during medieval times. Not everyone could afford armour and a lot of people went to battle wearing some scruffy clothing, but you being sick of leather and chainmail =/= it shouldn't be used in fantasy.

[AdamJenson]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Cyberpunk doesn't appeal to me sadly.

I await the details before I declare it "cyberpunk".  The image is cyberpunky but it could be just one character and not necessarily representative of the entire game or all characters.

[mupp3tz]

Are you all tuned in?

[wolfsite]

M U P P 3 T Z wrote...

Are you all tuned in?

Still says off air for me

[Fiery Phoenix]

I'm getting a Deus Ex 2.0 vibe.

[mupp3tz]

Me too. Anxiously waiting.. a bit worried we all calculated the wrong time somehow haha

[Seagloom]

M U P P 3 T Z wrote...

Are you all tuned in?

Naw. I'll wait for someone to post the details here or to a gaming website.

[android654]

Erik Lehnsherr wrote...

Tirigon wrote...

android654 wrote...

Also, guns are so superior to swords or magic. If you've played Max Payne, Red Dead Redemption, Stranglehold, Borderlands, or Hitman, then you would know you can make art out of shooting people.

No they are not.

I admit I havent played most of the games you mentioned but I HAVE played Borderlands and it was the worst piece of sh!t bastard of shooter and RPG I ever saw..... I wouldnt even have played it at all if not for my brother bothering me to play Co-op, which was about the only good thing I can say about it.

Anyways, shooters and RPGs just dont work together. Shooters require you to be able to 1-shot kill everything with a headshot, in RPGs damage depends on skills, stats etc.... which honestly is bad enough even with swords, but completely unbearable with guns.

Well, I've played all those games and I can firmly tell you that he is wrong, Shooting can be sport-y but it certainly isn't an art like using a Sword ot using a Paintbrush, Guns are crude, Good art is not.

Then I doubt you've played those games. 47 killing like a ghost or Max murdering dozens like an Angel of Death is artistic. I even remember one of the blurbs from Max Payne 2: The Fall of Max payne, a reviewer called it a "beautiful ballet of death." Swords and shields are too antiquated to resonate in this day and age, and employing something that is found in our reality in a piece of fiction allows the audience to make a connection to it. So yes, 47 with a rifle, Thorton with a silenced pistol or Payne with a .45 is more "beautiful" than Geralt with a sword or a wizard with a staff.

[mupp3tz]

Seagloom wrote...

M U P P 3 T Z wrote...

Are you all tuned in?

Naw. I'll wait for someone to post the details here or to a gaming website.

Haha!  You'll get details soon.  I'll take notes :]

[Tirigon]

jon1991 wrote...


I thought the shooter-RPG style worked well for Fallout 3 and New Vegas.

I think they sucked.

[wolfsite]

Got a title card now.

[termokanden]

Android: Point out to me the one true definition of what a dark game is. If you can't, it becomes a matter of opinion instead.

Modifié par termokanden, 30 mai 2012 - 05:05 .

[Tirigon]

AdamJenson wrote...

Have you ever been shot in the head?  One shot is all it takes, often even if you have a ballistic helmet on (depending on the rifle) and even if not, CONCUSSION!  Maybe even TBI.  You don't get to take 20 or so rounds to the body either.  Sure, there are things that HAVE to be done to make a game playable/fun (like medicine or magic to rejuvinate you when you are injured) or most games would end very quickly for you in the very first fight, like as soon as you stood up from behind some cover.  BLAM.  You're deaders.

In a good shooter that's very much the case.