| Author | Message |
|---|
|
Posted on 09 January 16 at 19:11 |
RazorPriest said:QcK Dagger HeaT said:Idea that is very Western of you.......under your definition any Final Fantasy Game wouldn't be an RPG except the MMO's. RPG's originate from board games like dungeons and dragons, where stats, upgrades, and roll checks dictate the way a game as played. I also got my origins in RPG games from Jrpg's First RPG I ever played was Final Fantasy VII. If your not leveling, upgrading stats, abilities, or weapons your not really an RPG. This notion of I play a character and make choices and define my character is a modern western rpg, where there are far less of these type of games made the the traditional JRPG style games, turn based or not. Idea by your definition we just need to change al tell games storyline game to RPG's  . If in most of the make a character and play Ex. Skyrim, Oblivion, Fallout still have a leveling system and a stats system that increases based on level.You clearly have never played a single tabletop RPG, let alone actual D&D. JRPGs are by no means some sacred standard that RPGs are measured by. Rather, they are typically crude on-rails grinding simulators with horrible character design and plots that are assembled from a random pool of endlessly repeating tropes. With notable exceptions, of course. Western RPGs, stretching all the way back to Ultima have always been more creative as a whole, and nowhere near as bound to strict tradition as their Japanese counterparts. That's not to say WRPGs don't have clichés. They absolutely do, but the whole reason RPG is a difficult genre to define is that the western side has developed and changed formulas over and over throughout the years, while the eastern side has remained more or less the same. Therefore, I usually like to treat W- and JRPGs as separate genres. Easier that way, since JRPGs are easy to define. WRPGs are not.
Saying Witcher 3 isn't an RPG is idiotic, and the same goes for Fallout 4. They're both WRPGs, a genre that has no proper definition. The former reminds me more of a Gothic game than anything else, and the latter is really nothing more than an open-world shooter with a focus on equipment upgrades. The notion that these wildly different concepts belong in the same genre classification is ridiculous, but it kinda just demonstrates my point. You're all arguing which of an apple and an orange is more like a banana. Stop it.My argument was always that RPG isn't a genre at all (except maybe JRPG). Genres describe gameplay. The things that make an RPG an RPG aren't related to gameplay at all - rather they are systems built around the gameplay.
Of course, that's a losing argument. No one wants to recognize that. So we go on. |
|
Posted on 09 January 16 at 20:06 |
| Wow fallout 4 really yikes I had more problems with that game than I did with halo 5 it wouldn't save my games load missions or even let me do much :'( |
|
Posted on 09 January 16 at 22:50 |
Eurydace said:My argument was always that RPG isn't a genre at all (except maybe JRPG). Genres describe gameplay. The things that make an RPG an RPG aren't related to gameplay at all - rather they are systems built around the gameplay.
Of course, that's a losing argument. No one wants to recognize that. So we go on.I agree, to a point. Systems like that can be used to help define a genre, but when those same systems so often appear in other genres (leveling, character upgrades etc.), they kinda lose their meaning. RPG is just one of those things we all kinda know when we see it, but I could never accurately describe the concept to someone who has never played a video game. |
What can change the nature of a man? |
|
Posted on 10 January 16 at 01:27 |
| Got Rise of the Tomb Raider with my xbox and it really is something. Didn't play the earlier titles on my 360 so didn't know what to expect, but I'm enjoying it quite a lot. |
|
Posted on 10 January 16 at 02:46 |
| Why is there no Best Kinect game category? It would be nice to honor those developers who actually try innovative things, like programming for motion controls. Plus, Fruit Ninja Kinect 2 was a great game, deserving of some recognition. |
|
Posted on 10 January 16 at 03:24 |
| range is good said:Why is there no Best Kinect game category? It would be nice to honor those developers who actually try innovative things, like programming for motion controls. Plus, Fruit Ninja Kinect 2 was a great game, deserving of some recognition.It got best original Kinect game |
|
Posted on 10 January 16 at 03:46 |
Chakaal Starr said: So since Battlefront has a horde mode,
Wait, what? Battlefront has a horde mode? Are you just messing with me? I remember trying all the modes but don't remember a horde mode being one of them. |
|
|
Posted on 10 January 16 at 04:08, Edited on 10 January 16 at 04:09 by Chakaal Starr |
FightingMegaFoo said:Chakaal Starr said: So since Battlefront has a horde mode,
Wait, what? Battlefront has a horde mode? Are you just messing with me? I remember trying all the modes but don't remember a horde mode being one of them.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4K4W4goQ78
You can play coop or single player |
|
|
Posted on 10 January 16 at 05:06 |
| range is good said:Why is there no Best Kinect game category? It would be nice to honor those developers who actually try innovative things, like programming for motion controls. Plus, Fruit Ninja Kinect 2 was a great game, deserving of some recognition.We don't want to encourage talented developers to make games on Kinect. |
|
|
Posted on 10 January 16 at 06:10, Edited on 10 January 16 at 15:19 by FightingMegaFoo |
Chakaal Starr said:FightingMegaFoo said:Chakaal Starr said: So since Battlefront has a horde mode,
Wait, what? Battlefront has a horde mode? Are you just messing with me? I remember trying all the modes but don't remember a horde mode being one of them.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4K4W4goQ78
You can play coop or single playerHoly crap, I totally missed it when playing the trial. Is it 4-player coop? Can you play with randoms?
Edit: No need to answer. I was totally excited about the possibility of Battlefront having a good horde mode a la Halo Reach or Mass Effect 3, so I Googled it. No 4-player coop, no playing with randoms. Another missed opportunity  . Sigh. |
|
|
Posted on 10 January 16 at 06:11 |
| Eurydace said:range is good said:Why is there no Best Kinect game category? It would be nice to honor those developers who actually try innovative things, like programming for motion controls. Plus, Fruit Ninja Kinect 2 was a great game, deserving of some recognition.We don't want to encourage talented developers to make games on Kinect. |
|
Posted on 10 January 16 at 07:28 |
| I gotta say where in the list of games was dying light, it was an awesome game and got nothing in the awards. I guess good games aren't rated then. |
|
Posted on 10 January 16 at 15:03 |
Chakaal Starr said:Ok, so lets get this straight, it supposedly wasn't about single player vs multiplayer, as quoted below. Below, you also mentioned lack of maps, but since we have since established equal maps, you are now complaining about the maps not having more junk on them compared to what you would see in the movies.
Above, you are talking about Blops 3 having 3 full modes, which include a single player, multiplayer and horde mode. So since Battlefront has a multiplayer and a horde mode, your remaining mode is single player, but supposedly you aren't referring to that. Of course, then you bring up sp in Battlefront again.
So if you are talking about incomplete games, the missing MP qualifies just as much as missing a four hour story. So I will point out again how some rpg's have great mp available, but others seem to be missing that.
When is the last time you played Battlefront 2? You should add to the ideas forum for ms for them get an id@xbox team to port it. They don't more staff, the game isn't as good as you remember. It will be like how everyone was so excited for that GTA port and then kinda disappointed. You might note, this isn't a sequel to the game from 10 years ago so it doesn't matter what that game had. They would get hated on no matter what they do.
When I was talking about balance for Walker assault, I suppose you could just let Y wing players kill the at-ats at the beginning of the round, that wouldn't generate any complaints when the rounds are 30 seconds long.
My nephew commonly gets 25 kills and 1 or 2 deaths in Halo, my other nephew does the same in Cod, so it surprises you in some way that someone might get runs in star wars?
Most of the matches I have played, whoever ran boba fett(or any hero) didn't seem to stand out too much, maybe because the players I was around would tend focus appropriately. For dogfighting mode, the hero ships did tend to get bigger runs but that is true with the movies. It is nice it isn't kill streak dependent, so it is balanced in that way, so that everyone gets a chance of feeling heroic.What does Battlefront 2 have to do with this? I clearly said Battlefront III Lucas Arts cancelled beta of the sequel to Battlefront 2, you need to read my post fully before posting. And yes Battlefront II is still a better game then Battlefront EA Edition, no stupid power-ups, able to access all the vehicles rather then having to find a circle on your map and hope it isn't a TIE Fighter and larger player counts.
Everything I mentioned was in the cancelled beta for Battlefront III before Disney bought Lucas Arts, it suffered the same fate Star Wars 1313 did. No decent ideas survive Disney's corporate BS so we are stuck with Battlefront a gimped game and definitely not a sequel to Battlefront 2.
You talk about modes and not depth to those modes which show your general lack of knowledge towards shooters. Blops Zombies mode is just about it's own game and cannot be compared to a lackluster and mediocre Survival mode. Nor would it compare with the other great horde modes Reach Firefight, GoW Horde or Blops Zombies. I would compare it to Future Soldiers or Bulletcounts mediocre mode, as BF Survival mode lacks anything decent to keep it from becoming a slog.
I guess we can jump to your idea of story mode, 4 hours for a campaign? I can only think of a few Battlefield 4 and Modern Warfare 3. Most shooters that have campaign's have a 10 hr story at least.
Are you really comparing games where you have the same health as everyone to a hero that has a 100 health and can just camp? Also there is a big difference to a pathetic 25 kill streak which anyone can do BTW compared to a 60+ kill streak. |
Out of the abyss peer the eyes of a demon, Behold the Razgriz, its wings of black sheath! |
|
|
Posted on 10 January 16 at 19:28 |
matdan12 said:What does Battlefront 2 have to do with this? I clearly said Battlefront III Lucas Arts cancelled beta of the sequel to Battlefront 2, you need to read my post fully before posting. And yes Battlefront II is still a better game then Battlefront EA Edition, no stupid power-ups, able to access all the vehicles rather then having to find a circle on your map and hope it isn't a TIE Fighter and larger player counts.
Everything I mentioned was in the cancelled beta for Battlefront III before Disney bought Lucas Arts, it suffered the same fate Star Wars 1313 did. No decent ideas survive Disney's corporate BS so we are stuck with Battlefront a gimped game and definitely not a sequel to Battlefront 2.
You talk about modes and not depth to those modes which show your general lack of knowledge towards shooters. Blops Zombies mode is just about it's own game and cannot be compared to a lackluster and mediocre Survival mode. Nor would it compare with the other great horde modes Reach Firefight, GoW Horde or Blops Zombies. I would compare it to Future Soldiers or Bulletcounts mediocre mode, as BF Survival mode lacks anything decent to keep it from becoming a slog.
I guess we can jump to your idea of story mode, 4 hours for a campaign? I can only think of a few Battlefield 4 and Modern Warfare 3. Most shooters that have campaign's have a 10 hr story at least.
Are you really comparing games where you have the same health as everyone to a hero that has a 100 health and can just camp? Also there is a big difference to a pathetic 25 kill streak which anyone can do BTW compared to a 60+ kill streak.My apologies, I thought you were talking about a game actually exists and just stuck an extra I in by accident. I don't know how I could have possibly made that error considering how hard it was for me to even find information on the game after you mentioned it wasn't a typo.
To further your point, Battlefront by EA is terrible compared to Watch_Dogs 4, so I see exactly where you were coming from. I mean those features of Watch_Dogs 4, they make every game look bad. Same with Aliens Colonial Marines 2, it even makes that Battlefront III seem like it wasn't even released. Set aside the fact that people were angry that the first game of both of those weren't like the original pre-release slices.
I think the time it takes for the story depends on the player a bit, what difficulty, how much they look around, but it wouldn't be a common knock on shooters if the stories were all fairly long. Howlongtobeat.com lists every call of duty game between 6-8 hours. Every Battlefront 6-8. Gears games are all 10 and under, Halo games 7-10 for shooters. Since that is average, you cut time off or add time based on the above factors. To give proportion it list the Order 1886 as 7 hours and that one is hugely criticized for length. I swear I finished The Order 1886 in 3 hours and I was looking around while playing normal difficulty. So maybe your memory is short because you are doing all the achievements or something while you work through the story if you only remember 2 games as being short.
Maybe you play a little too many shooters when you start thinking that a 25 kill streak in halo or cod is pathetic and think that anyone can do that. You ever think about applying to MLG? Slap a video together for us, shouldn't take long if anyone can do it. I have watched a couple players on twitch that were really good and they never got anywhere close to that kind of streak.
Though I prefer Gears horde mode, Survival mode in Battlefront is still fun. It recreates the feel of the movies from sound and visuals. Maybe it doesn't hold up to the game that doesn't exist that you are comparing it to, but you can't shoot storm troopers in any other horde mode at this time. |
|
Posted on 10 January 16 at 21:35 |
| Eurydace said:range is good said:Why is there no Best Kinect game category? It would be nice to honor those developers who actually try innovative things, like programming for motion controls. Plus, Fruit Ninja Kinect 2 was a great game, deserving of some recognition.We don't want to encourage talented developers to make games on Kinect.Perfect answer is perfect. |
|
Posted on 11 January 16 at 19:27 |
JW DEUCE said:Good to see Fallout 4 get some love. It's been getting dominated by Witcher 3 in all the polls I've seen on other websites. I haven't played Witcher 3. I thought Witcher 2 was just so average that I am in no hurry to play 3. But I'm cracked out in Fallout 4. Always been a big fan of Fallout. When it ain't broke, don't try to fix it.Completely agreed with Witcher 2; game was average at best imo as well. That said, W3 is far better than it from a story-telling and atmosphere perspective. Combat remains a clunkfest, but I understand CDPR has continued to improve the game, so it might be less glitchy than at release (it was a great game, if very frustrating at times with bad gameplay, font, inventory, etc).
As to Fallout 4, I am currently playing it for the 2nd time and am sooo shocked at how much I missed the first time around. Like most gamers on this site I likely played the game a little too much to the story and Achievements and left the sandbox on the table. A lot like Skyrim, if you play this game as a world it is vastly different than if you play it as a game. I loved it first time through....love it much more this time...the stories I missed the first time blow my mind!! |
|
Posted on 11 January 16 at 19:39 |
| Daelus1 said:... Like most gamers on this site I likely played the game a little too much to the story and Achievements and left the sandbox on the table...People play Fallout for the story? |
|
Posted on 11 January 16 at 21:01 |
WhyattThrash said:Daelus1 said:... Like most gamers on this site I likely played the game a little too much to the story and Achievements and left the sandbox on the table...People play Fallout for the story?Fallout has a story?
I played around 60-80 hours before I even went to Diamond City |
|
|
Posted on 12 January 16 at 13:52, Edited on 12 January 16 at 13:52 by Daelus1 |
d3nn1s99999 said:WhyattThrash said:Daelus1 said:... Like most gamers on this site I likely played the game a little too much to the story and Achievements and left the sandbox on the table...People play Fallout for the story?Fallout has a story?
I played around 60-80 hours before I even went to Diamond City lol...first time through I needed DC for the merchants; this time I started with 6 Charisma and have all the merchants I need in Sanctuary....still not done the upper half of the map after 80 hours....finished the Sub and Covenant last night.....I combed every inch of Skyrim, but botched my first playthrough here bigtime! |
|
Posted on 13 January 16 at 23:37, Edited on 13 January 16 at 23:38 by Silvery Death |
d3nn1s99999 said:WhyattThrash said:Daelus1 said:... Like most gamers on this site I likely played the game a little too much to the story and Achievements and left the sandbox on the table...People play Fallout for the story?Fallout has a story?
I played around 60-80 hours before I even went to Diamond City I do the same thing in every Bethesda game, in Oblivion I am pretty sure I had almost 100 hours before even going to Kvatch. Though once I have gotten to the main quest in Oblivion, Skyrim and Fallout 3 they have all been good/great story lines imo. (Fallout:NV was great too, but not a Bethesda developed game and can't judge Fallout 4's story since I am not even close to being done with it.) |
Check out my Youtube channel at: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCom3yzbUaMRPgeHVhLlPvjw |