Thor is the name of a specific person, not the title of the person wielding the hammer. So stupid. Missed opportunity to craft a new character and design for that universe.
Divinity: Original Sin came out this month. It's one of the best RPGs in years, and possibly the best thing that has come out of Kickstarter thus far.
I remember seeing a listing of this for Sega Genesis and I didn't know what the hell it was; there were many games that came out for that system that I never saw in any of the stores around me and never got write ups in magazines. A year or two later I saw it in an arcade. Was kind of a wierd situation finding about all these other Genesis games. I also never saw the Genesis version of Ninja Gaiden in stores. And these aren't little mom and pop stores I'm talking about, but major toy and electronic stores.
Funny how Skyrim has become the catch all term for "open world," yet none of these open world games take place in northern environments which is the thing that made Skyrim different from the other Elder Scrolls games, which are are all more or less the same.
This new Zelda sounds like its going to be like the orignal NES game in terms of world structure: open world, tackle dungeons in any order. What I'm wondering is if it will also have the fairly challenging combat (compared to the more recent LoZs) of the original?
I think one of your issues with open world games, besides preferring JRPG style, may be the same as mine - you prefer focused open world progession that necessitates exploration to progress, as opposed to open world where play is fueled by tons of little quests and you explore at will as some kind of virtual tourist. Problem with the latter is that most of the quests are simplistic chores and very few of them yield fruitful exploration (i.e. no good treasure or interesting spaces to find). For example, after Morrowind, Bethesda has seen fit to implement level scaled loot into their games, which means exploration won't yield any powerful weapons or artifacts because they will always be at your level. In Morrowind, you had a good chance to find unique magic items or valuable equipment when you went out of your way to explore a dungeon. And then there the Rockstar games where you don't find much at all as there is no loot/treasure system and not much in the way of random or special events to be found. On the other hand, FarCry 3, which I'm enjoying now, has all sorts of wildlife to find and hunt and the side missions allow for more emergent possibilities than these other games.
TL;DR open world games of the latter kind have a lot of lightweight filler and empty space to pad out their size. I prefer to play in smaller, content rich open spaces like Deus Ex, Metroid, Ultima, Yakuza, etc.
French Revolution? I might get back on AC with this one. I stopped after 2. 3 didn't have the massive building scale, and 4 turned me off with it's too-easy ship battles. But Unity has potential to be as interesting as 2, with that setting.
Ha Nick, dat Luigi death stare avatar. Waluigi see him rollin', he hatin'.
Yeah, I want to check that out eventually. Too many games I haven't gotten to yet.
If a game doesn't come as described in your first paragraph, I won't bother. I've been lucky so far: I haven't bought any games that felt incomplete. Maybe the fact that I mostly buy older PC games and only Japanese games on console has somethign to do with it, and I never buy Street Fighter shit anymore. I did buy the Dark Arisen release of Dragon's Dogma, but I still would have bought the "expansion pack" if had the original release; I just didn't have any money for full price games at the time.
Day one DLC, though? It can fuck right off. I will not buy your game if I see that shit. It signifies one of two things to me: either you don't care about game design as a craft and releasing a complete product, or you're trying to use some Pavlovian consumer marketing b.s. on me.
The problem, and why these genre fanboy wars make no sense, is: survival horror is a bullshit genre, or was until games like DayZ and Project Zomboid hit the scene and had actual survival needs like food, water, and shelter and permanent death. How do Resident Evil or Silent Hill put any more emphasis on "survival" than any other game where the protagonist can die? You try to survive in Mario, Pac-Man, Contra, Starfox, Dragon's Lair, Maniac Mansion (you have limited resources in that too!). etc, etc. Oregon Trail had more to do with survival techniques than any of these horror games. Horror themed games get the 'survival' tag more often than not, like the word doesn't mean anything in itself. I mean F.E.A.R.? Really? The game that plays like 100 hundred other FPS is a "survival" game? Being psychological makes something survival horror? I thought they called those "pyschological thrillers?"
I think people just twist terms to fit their own definition, that's what this is really all about; it's an egoistic pursuit. Like naming something "survival horror" or "RPG" makes it more sophisticated, special, and thus the people who like them can claim they are more sophisticated people than those who just play action games. I mean, it's pretty easy to survive in Slender: don't pick up the notes. It's not like you get to leave the areas if you find all the notes anyway. There is no progression.
Project Zomboid has surprisingly good music. Unlike 99% of modern games, I can remember the tunes days after I play the game.
