|
Fuzz posted:Yeah, I was so excited about it and then I played it at E3 and completely stopped caring. It wasn't even THAT pretty in motion... it was no Nomad, or whatever that new Flower/Fl0w company's next game is called. That game is just plain sexy. Aren't you in residency now? Do you still have time for games? Give me some hope for next year! Last year when I was on medicine I actually played call of duty with one of my attendings a few times. I killed his rear end and then he gave me honors 
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2011 01:30
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 22:10 |
|
|
I think this Dark Souls info needs to be reposted in this thread in case anyone is on the fence about this game. Here is some multiplayer pvp info originally posted by Nelson Mandingo. There's spoiler tags around it in case you want to know absolutely nothing about the game, but it's really almost solely about multiplayer information. The multiplayer is shaping up to be incredible and I'm just floored by how unique some of this stuff sounds. You have multiple systems of PVP. Black Phantom Invasions, Gravelord, Vagrant, and finally Bounty Hunting. I suppose Way of the White is too. Whenever you die you become Hollowed. Through defeating bosses and obtaining items in the game you can reclaim your human body back. In your hollow/zombie form you are given an unknown penalty, but cannot be invaded by other players. In your human form your character has no penalties and as at it's strongest, but is open to invasion by player Black Phantoms. #1. Black Phantom Invasions- They're like your typical Demon Souls black phantom invasions. Up to two player Black Phantoms can invade your game and you must defeat them or die. Show no guilt or remorse, they're here to take your life. To become a black phantom it's likely just as it was in Demon Souls. You use a specific item while in your Hollow Form to invade other player worlds. #2. Gravelord- A summoned Black Phantom who interferes with players. A gravelord is either a sign on the ground, or an actual enemy. It's unclear to me at this point. When a player summons a Gravelord, it goes out and finds another player's world and turns it into a pure black tendency. Enemies are then at their strongest, and Black Phantoms attack you. The world becomes harder when a Gravelord is around basically. The player must find the Gravelord to remove the curse on their game. Once finding them, they are able to teleport into the summoner's world and attempt to kill them in retribution. If they succeed their world is reverted back to normal. #3. Vagrants- I am just going to copy and paste Lordpen's post. "Vagrants are NPC Black Phantoms spawned from dropped equipment. Dropped equipment has a chance to become a vagrant and invade other peoples' worlds. The longer items are on the ground, the more powerful the Vagrant. The more powerful the vagrant, the higher chance it will drop better armor than what spawned it. Essentially, you might run across an NPC Black Phantom that drops rare armor simply because someone decided to drop a set of armor from their world and it morphed into a Vagrant that invaded yours." #4. Book of the Guilty / Player Bounty Hunting- In the game there is a system called Covenants. They're essentially factions, and promises you make to those factions. They help you roleplay your character a bit more and give you rewards. They also have some significance with player interaction online. When a player breaks their covenant, their name comes up in "The Book of the Guilty". The book of the guilty item is given by "Blade of the Darkmoon" covenant. When you join this covenant your job for them is to find and hunt other players who have broken their promises. #5. Way of the White Covenant- This one doesn't really make sense to me. I'll just copy / paste the information from the wiki. "This covenant is for helping out other players online. Players who are in this covenant will automatically be drawn closer to each other on the network. This makes Miracle Resonance easier to perform, as well as helps block people from antagonistic covenants from coming closer on the network."
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2011 17:35
|
|
|
I'm a little late on the Dark Soul's difficulty conversation, but here's my take. Both soul games are essentially puzzle games at their core. If you can figure out a few key concepts such as how the crafting system works, when to apply which elemental resin to your weapon, and that despite how scary that boss looks you can actually block 99% of his moves then the games aren't that difficult. Before you learn those things though the game seems impossibly difficult and every boss or hard area seems like an unstoppable death trap. The difficulty of the two games is around the same (if you ignore the crystal ring shield and iron flesh spell that make Dark Souls ridiculously easy), but if you already beat Demon Souls than the sequel should be a pushover since you already know the tricks and From didn't change the core gameplay at all. I beat most bosses in one try and max 3 tries on the difficult ones with a melee character and my roomate did the same with a mage. The areas weren't bad either unless they were made difficult by external means like the horrendous framerate in blighttown. Even the so called hardest area in the game isn't bad at all if you know you can find an item that helps you through in a different part of the game. I really don't know how people who have played Demon Souls to completion are having trouble with dark souls unless they brute forced their way through the first one without really learning how the game works. Edit: Actually I'd say Dark Souls is a lot easier than Demon Souls simply because of how badly you can abuse iron flesh spell and the butterfly crystal shield. Using even one of these makes the game laughably easy and if you did both you could probably beat the game by standing their and mashing the L2 button while cooking dinner at the same time. Megasabin fucked around with this message at 15:47 on Oct 18, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2011 14:59
|
|
|
foastwab posted:Guys, help me out. Having played both I would get Dark Souls. Dark Soul's has hands-down the best atmosphere I've ever encountered in a game. This is largely due to the fact that they've created a fantastic fictional world that features some incredibly inspired areas, lore, and monster design. I was constantly floored by the atmosphere every time I got to a new area in the game, and seeing how each location connected to the other to make a very realistic world in a spatial sense was amazing. It also has very little overt narrative and instead makes you piece together the (awesome) story by drawing inferences from clues in the environment, item descriptions, and monsters, in a way that makes the world they've create feel even more organic. I can't really say anything more other than it feels like a lot of effort and energy went into crafting Dark Souls and I'm not really sure you'll find another game experience quite like it anywhere else. Personally I can't really see anything else challenging it for GOTY at this point for me, and I'm saying that as a huge Uncharted, Batman, Battlefield, and Assassin's Creed fan with all four of those games having sequels out or right around the corner.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2011 02:43
|
|
|
It would be incredibly disappointing if they picked a city they've already used yet again.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2011 01:13
|
|
|
Remember when Naughty Dog claimed that their goal was to make Uncharted 3 multiplayer rival CoD and become the next big multiplayer experience  . Still buying the hell out of it, because I love the singleplayer that much.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2011 02:27
|
|
|
MUFFlNS posted:I prefered Bad Company 2 on console rather than PC just because the PC version was so full of snipers which I personally find quite annoying, so I ended up having much more fun with the game on PS3. That is by far the worst map in the game and this is one of those rare instances where the beta actually doesn't represent the final product well at all. It's easily the most impressive shooter in a long time and if you enjoy the FPS genre you should definitely pick it up. I've never had so many moments in a game where I've had to just stop shooting and stare at the action unfolding in front of me because of how incredible it looked. I am playing on PC though, not that the console version is bad, but after playing it on both the PC version is definitely better.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2011 17:47
|
|
|
Jamesman posted:We're not allowed to have fun games anymore. Last time I checked all those FPS and sports games were pretty fun to play. Especially with friends.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2011 07:38
|
|
|
DiminishedAngel posted:Random aside: I skipped MW3 because I find they don't change up the gameplay enough in each iteration, and battlefield 3 is providing a nice change of pace after ~3 years of CoD. However, all of my friends who still enjoy the gameplay say that MW3 is fantastic and is the best of the series yet. Considering the CoD series has featured the defining FPS gameplay of this generation, I would think being the best in that series warrants some praise?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2011 19:56
|
|
|
I don't know why, but I'm having a really hard time liking Uncharted 3. I'll preface this by saying Uncharted 1 was one of my favorite games for the entire first half of this console generation, and I'd consider Uncharted 2 possibly the best 3rd person shooter ever made. I'm not even referring to the combat, I'm actually talking about everything else about the game. This one just seems so... uninspired. Maybe I'm just tired of the characters? I feel like they haven't even put in a little bit of effort into changing up the formula. In the first one all of the surprises, plot twists, jokes, and small quips were novel. In the second they reused a lot of the same tricks, but they were amusing as throwbacks to the first game. This time it's still the exact gameplay tricks, story twists, and dialog, but I don't find any of it amusing anymore. It's no longer surprising when every other structure I'm climbing on collapses and I frantically grab the ledge narrowly avoiding death yet again. I can predict exactly when Nate is going to makes a quip about how his adversary literally has an army at their disposal, and instead of finding it endearing like I did with the last times, I just get irritated that I was able to predict the line. They've hardly changed anything except the background scenery, and all of the re-used lines, gameplay segments, jokes, and character stereotypes are really starting to grate on me. Not to mention the combat in this one sucks. They brought back the infinite waves of enemies from the first and added a horrible melee system that has you mashing the same buttons over and over to watch the same 3 canned animations on repeat. At some point tonight I just noticed I wasn't enjoying any part of the game. I was rushing through the fights to try and experience the other aspects of the game, only to realize I was bored by all the stuff I used to find so charming.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2011 10:14
|
|
|
the truth posted:What chapter are you on? Chapter 10. I enjoyed the flashback segments and as soon as the actual game started I stopped having fun.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2011 18:35
|
|
|
the truth posted:Ah, then keep playing. I didn't like Syria, but the next couple sections are great. That's good to hear. Even if it never got better I think I would slog through just because of how much I loved the other two games.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2011 21:28
|
|
|
axleblaze posted:Ahem Well that's one step better then when they just make up obviously false poo poo out based on nothing just to get views. Honestly, would anyone care if all of gaming journalism just disappeared? I guess Rock, Paper, Shotgun can stay around. They're cool.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2011 01:52
|
|
|
SamBishop posted:Well, I would as it's my job and I'd be utterly penniless. I really wish people would stop it with the "hurr, games journalism Sorry Sam, but you can't just brush the problem off by claiming all bad journalism suddenly doesn't count as journalism anymore. That attitude is just as  , and also demonstrates you are having some serious denial about the state of your field in this industry. Every professional field has low quality practitioners, but those members are still part of the profession (much to the dismay of their colleagues). Kotaku has it's own writers/reporters that investigate, report on events in the gaming industry, and would definitely consider their website gaming "journalism", no matter how bad a name they are giving the profession. I do want to apologize for my statement, because I didn't mean to offend you. Unfortunately gaming journalism is such a small field, and the majority of it is flooded with poor quality stuff, that it becomes easy to make sweeping statements about the field in general. I was exaggerating with my statement and I don't actually wish all of gaming journalism disappears, since there is some great stuff out there if you look for it, but I won't lie when I say I wish 80% of it did.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2011 20:33
|
|
|
I said come in! posted:It's really frustrating to see a bunch of rear end in a top hat pricks like Kotaku come along and become so popular. While people like SamBishop have been doing this writing about gaming thing for longer then every single staff member at Kotaku has, combined, and only has a tiny, unknown website to show for it. It really shows the issues with gaming journalism; if you're not writing about Halo being better than Call of Duty, or boobies, then your site won't go anywhere. This isn't necessarily true. See Rock, Paper, Shotgun. They pretty much write about tons of obscure stuff. I'm not saying they are as well known as Kotaku, because they aren't, but they have a pretty decent fanbase; enough to at least maintain their website and write constantly.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2011 00:26
|
|
|
SamBishop posted:It's really not a smug thing to say that absolutely nothing on Kotaku should be taken as any form of journalism based on their output. They literally became popular by taking other people's stories and writing a few words about them, usually in such a way that they'd get hits. Their controversial bullshit may get them games, but it doesn't legitimize what they do. I don't really read Kotaku much, but I was under the impression they also wrote some of their own stuff? If they truly only comment on what other people write, then yes, I'm inclined to agree with you that they are in fact not journalists at all. Perhaps I should not have used the world journalism then, and just said "writing about games". I also wouldn't want you out of a job, since judging by your posts here you seem like a reasonable person who is capable of writing well. I do however still wish there was a large purge of people who write about games, since it's so hard to find the few good sources in the sea of garbage. I don't really think we're that off topic, unless there is a separate games journalism thread, which would probably just devolve into people posting screenshots of horrible kotaku articles like the one above.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2011 01:45
|
|
|
I said come in! posted:For what it's worth SamBishop, I think most goons are in agreement that Kotaku is a terrible website. SA forums are the only place I really need for gaming. Pretty much this. I feel like all the crap gets run through a filter and then the decent stuff gets posted here.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2011 02:12
|
|
|
MUFFlNS posted:Here's hoping they go back to what made Killzone 2 such an incredible game It really isn't a controversial opinion. All of the Call of Duty games have some pretty fantastic singleplayer set pieces (with the slight flaw that they sometimes play themselves). This fact is widely recognized by both reviewers and consumers, considering the series is one of the best selling and highly reviewed in the history of video games. Everyone is entitled to an opinion and it's A'ok not to like the series, but anyone who tells you they are objectively bad games is just doing so to be edgy or has no conception of good game design. Also I really really hope Guerrilla gets their poo poo together for Killzone 4. Killzone 2 was one of my favorites. I bought Killzone 3 on launch and played it for maybe 3 days before I gave up and sold it.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2011 19:09
|
|
|
The chances of that game actually being good are slim, unless they directly copy Smash Brother's formula. Smash Brothers clones sneak in here and there, but they all suck, because they try to change the formula up and just aren't anywhere near as much fun. Also I feel like the development team puts a whole lot of love and an insane amount of time into each Smash Brother game. Come to think of it, there actually already has been a Smash Brothers-esque 4-player fighting game that used some Sony characters like Solid Snake, but it never came out in America. I also heard it sucked.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2011 08:06
|
|
|
I said come in! posted:I'm in agreement with you here. I didn't understand all of the hype and sperging that game series had. I played the Wii one and it was completely retarded and pointless. The new Marvel vs Capcom is similar and actually a fun game. This is some serious  right here. They are both fighting games (albeit one is way more casual than the other); the games literally have the same point-- to kill your opponent. The gameplay of each is completely different though, and you can't even really compare them. Also you just throw a bunch of adjectives around without making any real comments about gameplay.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2011 02:50
|
|
|
I said come in! posted:I've played it, didn't like it, wasn't that fun. Not going to go into a long post about a non-ps3 and a super casual party game at that. Sorry my opinion gets him so worked up, I guess. I'm not worked up, and you are more than entitled to your own opinion, which I would gladly accept if it was intelligently expressed. It wasn't. When people make statements they tend to follow them up with explanations illustrating why they think that way. Moving away from this, I think it would be actually neat if they went for a 3D type 4 player fighter, a la Powerstone. Honestly, I just want another powerstone...
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2011 06:54
|
|
|
I know I'm going to be in the minority here, but I actually thought the Last Guardian looked rather bland compared to SOTC. The idea of a buddy-monster system didn't appeal to me at all, and the small amount of gameplay in the trailer looked rather dull. I'm kinda hoping they are taking the Blizzard approach-- "this game doesn't mean our standards so let's can it".
|
|
#
¿
Dec 22, 2011 21:26
|
|
|
Has anyone here been part of the Gotham City Imposters beta? I just found out about the game today, and it look's like a lot of fun. Especially since I have 5 friends who would be willing to play, and it's a 6v6 game. For those who have tried it, is it any good?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2012 23:51
|
|
|
homeless snail posted:Yeah, its under demos. I'm hearing that KZ3 isn't actually free to play, though. Sargent isn't the level cap, but rather that's when the demo period ends, and you have to pay if you want to play more period. Kind of lovely they advertised it that way. Judging by what I remember of the game, most players won't have a problem digitally shelving that pile of garbage by the time they reach Sargent.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 29, 2012 02:47
|
|
|
TheRobnoxious posted:This is going to sound pretentious but games like Flow and Flower and Journey make me glad I picked a PS3 over a 360. The fact SECA pumps production money into these smaller game companies to produce niche products that will by no means be blockbuster sellers shows that Sony, despite all the many things they comically gently caress up with regularity, sees a little bit beyond throwing out exclusivity cash to yet some EPIC redundant shooter series year after year to the frothing masses. The reception would be absolutely fine. I'm glad PS3 users have it, but almost everyone I've shown it to enjoys flower. If it was on both consoles or just 360 it would still do well.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2012 07:35
|
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:I played some of DMC2 in the HD collection, it has got to be the least cunningly designed action game I have seen in a long time. I could have beaten the first boss with one hand tied behind my back, with two hands I wasn't hit once. All the normal enemies can be beat by just mashing square, you don't even need to move. Does it ever get any better? Conveniently this description also works for Ninja Gaiden 2, which is another giant pile of garbage. Maybe it's better if we never get a Bayonetta 2...
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2012 09:49
|
|
|
Dominic White posted:Eh? I think I played the original version... at least I know I played it on the Xbox. All I remember doing standing there with the Scythe, mashing x, and watching every enemy disintegrate without any effort at all. It was very disappointing after how technical the combat in the first game was.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2012 11:14
|
|
|
I finally finished Uncharted 3 after playing it in small segments over a long time. It was a solid game, but I found it took a pretty big step down from UC2. On purely a gameplay level it had a 2-3 major flaws for me. The primary one being that they reverted the combat tempo back to that of UC1, throwing wave after wave after wave of badguys at you. UC2 managed to fix that by averaging around two waves of enemies in an encounter. This game went back to 3+ waves, which starts to make the gunplay go from fun to tedious. Another issue is that I wish they would just give up on promoting melee combat in these games, or at least put way more effort into it. Since the combat used two buttons, and mainly consisted of just mashing square, every single melee fight in the game plated out exactly the same. It's just far more boring than the gunplay, and to make matters worse they forced you to use it in this one more than a couple of times. My third big issue is that I just felt a lot of "been there, done that" for most of the set pieces in the game. Rescue kidnapped ally-- Check. Car Chase-- Check. Ancient Undiscovered city that falls apart-- check. The only set piece that really made an impact on me was the cruise ship, which was fantastic. Sadly, it really was the [i]only[i] one that left me with any strong impression. Story wise I thought it suffered even more. The stories in the other two were fantastical, yet made sense within the context of the world they've created. This one felt far less cohesive. What's the deal with magic the spiders (they at least have explanations for the mystical elements in the other two games)? Marlow brings up that Nathan Drake is fake name, but this point is never elaborated on again. Why did the ruler of that ancient city poison the water supply? Why do the bad guys need an ancient hallucinogenic agent so badly when they've already been using one that works great throughout the game. That desert nomad character has to be one of the weakest supporting character I've ever seen. Why did Chloe and the other dude never work their way back into the story? It just felt very very sloppy to me. On top of that the writing is starting to feel very samey, and it's starting to get old when I can literally guess Drake's lines word for word before he says them. Despite all this the game is still decent, but it worries me when a franchise takes such a noticeable drop in quality. I think Naught Dog should either end it here or seriously consider how they can mix it up before making the fourth one.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2012 21:20
|
|
|
MUFFlNS posted:Not saying that I disagree with you but I think a lot of this can be attributed to the fact that after they made Uncharted 2, Naughty Dog split into two teams with only half of those people working on Uncharted 3 (the other half are working on The Last of Us). I think that this certainly shows when you take the things you've said about Uncharted 3 into account. I mean, personally I really enjoy the game (multiplayer especially) but I do think a very strong case could be made that it didn't recieve the same amount of love and care that the other two games in the series did, and was basically Uncharted by the numbers. You pretty much summed up my entire post more eloquently with "[it] was basically Uncharted by the numbers". I'm a huge fan of the Uncharted Series because I really think the massive amount of effort and pride they put into each game shows through. I was disappointed by 3 because all of that personalized effort was missing, and it instead felt like the product of a "Uncharted Gameplay/Story Sequence Generator" machine.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2012 22:11
|
|
|
Wandle Cax posted:So they did it the right way then. It's a game and honestly I think the story should be built around ideas for impressive set pieces rather than the other way around. I want to play an awesome game, I don't really care how they frame it in terms of story. I don't think games should be created thinking what kind of game can be fitted around this great story they have. As evidenced by many other A+ quality games, a video game can have both a great story and a great gameplay. You might not care about one of those aspects, but it's obvious a bunch of us do based on the posts made so far. Also my problems with UC3 were not just story based. I thought a lot of the set pieces were just too similar to ones done in the other two games. Overall the game just felt sloppy compared with the care put into the other two.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2012 18:06
|
|
|
Is it a prequel? Does that mean Kratos is just a regular solider under Ares command? That would be pretty silly, because even the most talented game director is going to have trouble transitioning the gameplay from insane god/titan slaying to Kratos beating up a bunch of humans.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2012 09:40
|
|
|
Any screenshots or video yet? I spent god knows how many hours in SSB: Melee and Brawl during college. I'd love to do it all over again, provided I can find people at my hospital to play with. I seriously hope they just 100% rip off Smash Brothers, because I can't see them improving the gameplay much more than that.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2012 06:40
|
|
|
After watching the video I can see they 100% copied Smash in every aspect, and I love them for it. All this game needs to be amazing is the same winning formula with Sony characters and levels. Also I hope they try and cram in at least 30 characters, because the more the merrier in these types of games.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2012 06:51
|
|
|
Can they use characters from PSN games? I want to see the less peaceful side of the dude from Journey. They could probably do some pretty creative things. I'd love to see a colossus from SOTC or one of the bosses from Demon Souls (Flamelurker  )
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2012 07:05
|
|
|
I don't really love the way you kill other characters. There are no health bars or ring outs (smash bros). Instead you fight until you gain enough meter to do a super, and people hit by the super are killed and are out of the match.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2012 09:46
|
|
|
I said come in! posted:That's not really fair to say, it could have different enough, we don't know yet. If someone finds Smash "really bad and boring", it would have to take some pretty drastic changes to make them enjoy this game. Sure this will not be a 1:1 clone, but from the little we've seen the core gameplay seems to very very similar.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2012 18:32
|
|
|
Krad posted:If they can say that the whole sequence wasn't scripted, I'll buy it day one. It was definitely scripted. It's going to be just like Uncharted-- very linear and heavily scripted. Which means the concepts "guns have little ammo and no regenerating health" mean nothing, since they will give you whatever ammo you need in each encounter, and probably give you health packs after each one. Otherwise the game would come to a grinding stop if you messed up and couldn't heal. It's also going to be awesome and a ton of fun just like Uncharted. God of War on the other hand almost put me to sleep. I can only play the same game so many times.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2012 03:37
|
|
|
miscellaneous14 posted:Here's everything for those who can't see the store right now: http://blog.us.playstation.com/2012/06/05/playstation-store-update-242/ Near-undodgable 1 hit kill supers are a horrible unfun gameplay mechanic. They were one of the worst aspects of Brawl. Sony' smash bros main gameplay mode is entirely based around these supers. On top of that the game looks bland and uninspired, and the fact people are claiming it appears to be better balanced is laughable considering we've seen a whole 2 minutes of footage. I honesty don't know how anyone could think it looks better than smash brothers, and this is coming from someone who hasn't owned a Nintendo product in around 8 years.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2012 23:03
|
|
|
How does one opt into beta's on the PSN? I remember going through some procedure where I had to enter a serial key on my old PS3 to do so. Ive gotten a new one since then and never bothered to do it, but I'd like to now
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2012 23:17
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 22:10 |
|
|
second-hand smegma posted:I have no idea why anyone would do this. 3 is the better game. 2 has the better campaign. Even if you don't care about the order and flow of the story (which you should), the set-pieces and multiplayer in 3 are still far superior, and it is definitely the game to go out on. The set pieces in 2 are much better than 3. I can barely remember 3 besides that part on the ship which was pretty good. That said there is really no reason to play these games out of order.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2012 03:48
|
|