No worries. I was aware it took place in Ivalice which did pique my interest, but my console days were over by the time it released. I did look into it further out of curiosity. A lot of people seem to hate Vaan. XD I once read an intriguing essay about how Vaan was originally meant as a side character, and cut content forced them to rewrite much of the story with him as protagonist.
Eh, if it ever comes out on Steam I may look into it. What I will not do is buy a console for it. My backlog is huge enough without going out of my way to add to it.
No worries. I was aware it took place in Ivalice which did pique my interest, but my console days were over by the time it released. I did look into it further out of curiosity. A lot of people seem to hate Vaan. XD I once read an intriguing essay about how Vaan was originally meant as a side character, and cut content forced them to rewrite much of the story with him as protagonist.
Eh, if it ever comes out on Steam I may look into it. What I will not do is buy a console for it. My backlog is huge enough without going out of my way to add to it.
StarCraft comes immediately to mind; I never liked the gameplay. To me, it felt like it kinda wanted me to build big armies, but it felt too micro-heavy to be fun for anyone not a high-APM mouse torturers, and I hated having to move my armies 12 units at a time. StarCraft II is much better on both counts, and I've enjoyed it much more.
What? If he plays XII then he'll have to deal with Vaan being the protagonist. There is nothing good about being Vaan...and the story was pretty simplistic, at least in the first few hours when I ended up quitting.
Lol. While Vaan is a poor excuse for a human being, that's no reason to not play an otherwise good game.
The story gets a bit more complex, and even as "simplistic" as it is initially it's far more unique than the typical FF fare.
I have no tolerance for playing a shorter version of Tidus.
Lol again. Haven't played X yet. But I have tolerance for him because I can mostly ignore him (thinking "shut your mouth you idiot" when he opens it, and ignoring him when he closes it).
No worries. I was aware it took place in Ivalice which did pique my interest, but my console days were over by the time it released. I did look into it further out of curiosity. A lot of people seem to hate Vaan. XD I once read an intriguing essay about how Vaan was originally meant as a side character, and cut content forced them to rewrite much of the story with him as protagonist.
Eh, if it ever comes out on Steam I may look into it. What I will not do is buy a console for it. My backlog is huge enough without going out of my way to add to it.
There's a rumor going around that there's an HD release coming out, so if it does MAYBE SE will release it on PC.
While it was still a good game, I still think that Fallout 2 is a bit overrated. Compared to other groups, such as the Master's Army and Caesar's Legion, the Enclave are not compelling villains. Compared to 1,3, and NV, the pop culture references were overabundant, and got tiresome before the game was anywhere complete. The narrative lacked the focus of Fallout 1's, and the story suffered as a result, I just felt like it was too easy to lose sight of the chosen one's mission in the chaos of the game's vast content.
I disagree about the Enclave not being compelling villains. I think they -are- compelling, but the problem is that Fallout 2 is so wide open they're barely in the story at all. You don't get to interact with them much at all before they carpet bomb Arroyo and then they pretty much disappear again before Navarro and the Poseidon rig.
In my library...I would say Dark Souls and Witcher stand out. Games that people hyped, but I think they suck. Deus Ex:HR is my library too and that game was also horrible.
In my library...I would say Dark Souls and Witcher stand out. Games that people hyped, but I think they suck. Deus Ex:HR is my library too and that game was also horrible.
J.Reezy, while I am sure your post is chock full of all sorts of witty insight I am afraid it must have gone over my head, not sure what the significance is of a picture of a young boy doing his worst impression of trollface and how it relates to the post of the thread at hand, care to enlighten me?
Also just a reminder to everyone, it is not enough to just say a game is horrible, you must at least give some insight into why you think it is horrible.
Lol again. Haven't played X yet. But I have tolerance for him because I can mostly ignore him (thinking "shut your mouth you idiot" when he opens it, and ignoring him when he closes it).
There's a rumor going around that there's an HD release coming out, so if it does MAYBE SE will release it on PC.
Not sure whether to feel happy or sad about that. The Vaan hate here is strong. Makes me worried about what I will be getting into. >.<
J.Reezy, while I am sure your post is chock full of all sorts of witty insight I am afraid it must have gone over my head, not sure what the significance is of a picture of a young boy doing his worst impression of trollface and how it relates to the post of the thread at hand, care to enlighten me?
Also just a reminder to everyone, it is not enough to just say a game is horrible, you must at least give some insight into why you think it is horrible.
I'm just going to assume you have the worst opinion of me judging by your responses to me thus far. Which is cool. I must say you have this weird snobbishness about you as if someone is supposed to enlighten you on whatever because you go unnecessarily out of your way to address it.
TL;DR that was a verbose way of asking, "What was the point in you responding to me?"
I'm just going to assume you have the worst opinion of me judging by your responses to me thus far. Which is cool. I must say you have this weird snobbishness about you as if someone is supposed to enlighten you on whatever because you go unnecessarily out of your way to address it.
TL;DR that was a verbose way of asking, "What was the point in you responding to me?"
I have no idea what gave you that impression, I was merely curious as I have no idea what that picture is supposed to mean, I am sorry if my post offended you but I was merely engaging in what I thought was the standard practice for furthering one's understanding of something that they don't yet understand, asking questions. That is the standard practice for furthering your understanding of something is it not? I apologize if I committed another social faux pas by asking you another question but it is the only way I can understand your mindset.
As for the first point you made -- Well, it's hard for me to argue that there aren't a lot of side quest in ME1, as well, that ultimately'd take your time away from the main plot for a moment, which is true, but that's generally an RPG thing, right? You'd think Geralt of Rivia would have better things to do then running around picking his nose the first 2 hours of the Witcher and Witcher 2, before the plot finally decides to move on, because of all the fetch quest (mostly in Witcher 1) which is why that game bored me a lot... until I played it again and it finally became halfway engaging at least after 7 hours of doing dull stuff.
Mass Effect's narrative was basically set up on a non-existent 'timer.'
"You have to get to Saren before he finds the big bad plot thing."
Which is fine.
But side quests under those conditions just throw away urgency out the window. It's stupid. In the Witcher One and Two, the urgency isn't there, the game gives you room to breath and explore. In the Vizima outskirts you have to get in the city; that's your goal. There's no "when" to do it, you just got to do it. So there's plenty of motive for Geralt to establish contacts outside, gather finances, do this and that etc... In the Witcher 2, it's exactly the same in Flotsam. You know that Letho is there and you can't leave until you kill the Hentai-pus thing.
The above applies to ME2. Say what you want about the plot, I know full well it's the one thing that screwed up EVERYTHING for the series, but the game, through the narrative, gave you time to do things. The plot wouldn't progress after a certain point, but the Reapers weren't coming any time soon and the Collectors would might as well murder your face if you try to be reckless.
So if you want to TL;DR ME2's plot, you could easily say "it's about doing lots of stuff so you don't die with the big thing." That's basically it, whilst ME1's is boiled down to "reach the plot thing before the bad guy does." ---- But wait! I need to go and do sidequests in other planets first because that totally justifies this!
I'm using the "Sylvius" approach with this. "What motive does my character have to do x rather than y?" So if you want, you could totally justify a few side quests in ME1. Of course, you need finances, weapons, contacts and whatever. But you certainly don't need to do fifty different things in fifty different planets because that BS Saren is pulling is always in the back of your mind.
I think BioWare pulled it off with BG2 the best and hell, even DA2. When the goal is more obtuse, it gives your character and the game room to breathe.
I'm talking specifically about "collect x amount of money." It might seem like one huge colossal waste of time and the most boring plot device ever conceived; but in that time you got to explore the setting, the NPCs, the mechanics and everything else that's important about the game.
Part of the reason why I liked Persona 3 a lot. The goal, for a long while, was "reach the top of Tarturus." That gave LOADS of room for me to bond with my friends and do my social links whilst also improving on the gameplay and a whole bunch of other stuff to boot.
I'd compare the structure of PE3's narrative to ME2... but that'd incite some hostility. However, when I mean structure, I mean structure. Nothing else other than the way it's paced and progressed. Nothing more, and nothing less.
The environments of ME1 might not have been perfect, but I found there were more engaging side quests than "land on this planet, shoot some mercs, report to Cerberus, repeat". ME1 had those too, sure, but some of them did have some half-way engaging backstory as well, like the ones that dealt with Shepard's background.
That's why one of the best quests in ME2 was Samantha's loyalty mission and Thane's.
As for your other stuff...
Could say stuff, but it's pretty much going to be "in my opinion" so I have nothing else to add other than preference. If Mass Effect One felt like a Space Opera whilst the other a Sci-Fi action flick then it's fine to me. That's your thing, I'm not gonna argue against what you like xD
But speaking of Space Operas.
If you love 'em.
Then why HAVEN'T YOU WATCHED LOTGH YET YA GIT! xD
Here's a sci-fi that kicks the **** out of anything you loved about ME1
I tried it out and the game just never grabbed me.
Bruh... Do you even good games?
I have no idea what gave you that impression, I was merely curious as I have no idea what that picture is supposed to mean, I am sorry if my post offended you but I was merely engaging in what I thought was the standard practice for furthering one's understanding of something that they don't yet understand, asking questions. That is the standard practice for furthering your understanding of something is it not? I apologize if I committed another social faux pas by asking you another question but it is the only way I can understand your mindset.
Yeah... Let me not even touch this. I'mma need you to fall back on these pointless replies to my posts, buddy. Like it's cute that you want to go out of your way to talk down to me, and if you were a beautiful lady I'd probably enjoy it somewhat, but it's just kind of annoying in this instance.
I'm using the "Sylvius" approach with this. "What motive does my character have to do x rather than y?" So if you want, you could totally justify a few side quests in ME1. Of course, you need finances, weapons, contacts and whatever. But you certainly don't need to do fifty different things in fifty different planets because that BS Saren is pulling is always in the back of your mind.
Still, even that's kinda questionable, given that Shepard is a Spectre. The finances and weapons should all be provided easily by the Council. I think Mordin makes a joke about this at one point during ME2.
Still, even that's kinda questionable, given that Shepard is a Spectre. The finances and weapons should all be provided easily by the Council. I think Mordin makes a joke about this at one point during ME2.
Well, I can't do much about that, can I?
It's a game after all, some things have to overlooked else there'd be no game to play if they actually paid me
Though by the end of all my ME1 runs I'm richer than the damn Alliance government.
The above applies to ME2. Say what you want about the plot, I know full well it's the one thing that screwed up EVERYTHING for the series, but the game, through the narrative, gave you time to do things. The plot wouldn't progress after a certain point, but the Reapers weren't coming any time soon and the Collectors would might as well murder your face if you try to be reckless.
So if you want to TL;DR ME2's plot, you could easily say "it's about doing lots of stuff so you don't die with the big thing." That's basically it, whilst ME1's is boiled down to "reach the plot thing before the bad guy does." ---- But wait! I need to go and do sidequests in other planets first because that totally justifies this!
I'm the opposite opinion. In ME 1 you don't have a real sense of urgency until Virmire, up till then Saren's timetable was abstract. It's then when you know how close he is. Besides, you can play just plot missions. In ME2 the Collectors are killing tens of thousands while we kill mercs and deal with the dirty dozen's psychological issues, even if we do only the minimal number of missions we hardly do anything related to stopping them.
Retour en haut
