Editorials and Features

Forum for Editorials and other News Features

Fumbling The Handoff

  • SanadaSanada679,167
    Posted on 25 July 16 at 22:52
    I'm glad to see Judgment was the headliner for this one.
  • Posted on 26 July 16 at 21:40
    dresdenWWII said:
    New Vegas is vastly superior to Fallout 3 in many areas--narrative, choice & consequence, companions, gameplay additions, and general role-playing. These improvements are thanks to the fact it was created by many of the same developers (now working under Obsidian) who made Fallout 1 & 2, unlike Fallout 3. In a sense, one could claim Fallout 3 is the filler sequel handed off to another studio.
    100% agreed. The story especially was waaaaay better in New Vegas. But this is nothing new with Obsidian. I felt like KOTOR 2, as far as narrative and dialogue go, was a huge leap from KOTOR 1, which was made while Bioware was still BIOWARE and not the watered down corporate EA version of the company. That speaks volumes.

    Just wanted to comment on this post, carry on lads.
  • AnxsighetyAnxsighety1,582,424
    Posted on 30 July 16 at 06:02
    Where the hell did these Bioshock 2 defenders come from. This thread became the only people in the gaming community who feel that way. I don't love Infinite like most do, but 2 is a trash pile compared to the original, and even to Infinite as well.

    Halo hasn't evolved enough, which is ironic considering the original title. The newest one tried to be something is wasn't. ODST may be the most boring game ever made as far as campaign goes. Judgment is 50/50, but still probably on the negative side of things.

    Anyways, original point just has me baffled. There is literally nothing better or even as good about Bioshock 2 as 1. The only thing I think I may have liked better was how much character they put into the Little Sisters. That's about it. The game is a mess.
  • AnxsighetyAnxsighety1,582,424
    Posted on 30 July 16 at 06:05
    s3bb86 said:
    Dwabi said:
    ME 2 was the least RPG-like but had the most engaging cinematic experience. The new dialogue interupts are perhaps my favorite thing ever. ME3 had the best mechanics, but that's because I like ARPGs and shooters, if I was an RPG purist I would've been pissed.
    I never thought of ME2 and 3 as RPGs, it is even debateable for ME1 imo. they are story driven shooters with RPG elements. you have a class and some skills attached to them, thats it. no attribute points to use, no crafting system and so on. They are great games, ME3 is in my top 3 for the 360 generation, but at - least for me - no RPGs
    They are not shooters. They are RPGs. Well, we could debate 3. In general, the game is spent walking around, doing nothing, talking, dialogue choices, etc. the shooting doesn't make up a majority of the game. At least in 1/2.
  • AnxsighetyAnxsighety1,582,424
    Posted on 30 July 16 at 06:08
    Bar6arian said:
    Embrace change as its the only thing you can count on. I think Gears 4 will do great but won't be like the original for me so I'll more than likely pass on it.
    If you've followed it at all, it will probably play closest to the original compared to the rest of the series.
  • AnxsighetyAnxsighety1,582,424
    Posted on 30 July 16 at 06:10
    Ackter said:
    Multiple ways to complete a quest will always be superior to only one way of completing a quest.

    That's not subjective at all.
    That's like saying a choose your own novel is better than a well written one.

    If a game is made well, the one option should be entertaining/fun/engaging. Your argument is poor.
  • Removed Gamer

    Removed Gamer

    Posted on 30 July 16 at 06:18
    Holy quadruple post
    Walkthrough Manager and Platformer LEGEND
  • Posted on 30 July 16 at 12:54
    Judgment was a terrible game!
    It had a couple of redeeming features(some good campaign level settings and OverRun mode), but otherwise it was tripe.
    It pissed over previously established story points, made the campaign overall more of the optional arcade mode that Gears of War 3 had and ruined MP by taking away key features.
    Everyone who had key roles in the Gears franchise up to that point left during the development of Judgment.
    To say that the Coalition are a "handoff" developer is doing them disservice.
    Rod Ferguson, the Coalitions lead, was one of those key personnel from the original trilogy.
    I'm pretty sure Gears of War is in safe hands.
  • misfit119misfit1191,016,763
    Posted on 31 July 16 at 01:57, Edited on 31 July 16 at 02:01 by misfit119
    xSRYANx said:
    Where the hell did these Bioshock 2 defenders come from. This thread became the only people in the gaming community who feel that way. I don't love Infinite like most do, but 2 is a trash pile compared to the original, and even to Infinite as well.
    Honest to god I've always felt that Bioshock 2 was one of the worst RPG shooters I've ever played. I don't think I've ever disliked a game as thoroughly as I did Bioshock 2. I didn't care for the weapons, the enemies, the story, the plot, the characters or the dialogue. Oh and the crappy multiplayer. There's literally not a single thing I like about that game. Yet I see it defended as underrated and I literally cannot comprehend how that is.

    LostSoul 301281 said:
    JTo say that the Coalition are a "handoff" developer is doing them disservice.
    Rod Ferguson, the Coalitions lead, was one of those key personnel from the original trilogy.
    I'm pretty sure Gears of War is in safe hands.
    To be fair the real handoff developer was People Can Fly for Judgement. It was then passed on to The Coalition after Epic left the building. So Gears of War has a bit of hot potato going on with it which is never good for a series.

    As to the article itself:
    One of the companies that sprung to mind while reading this article was Obsidian. Every game they touch is a mess of half-baked ideas, horrible characterization and glitch-riddled bug fests.

    KotOR 1? One of the best Star Wars games I've ever played. KotOR 2? A chance for the writer to whine about how stupid the setting is (i.e. everything that comes out of Kreia's mouth).

    Fallout 3? Interesting take on the Fallout universe. Had problems but no worse than the previous games. Fallout: New Vegas? An interesting setting. Good start. Oh wait, yet more preachy whining from Chris Avellone! (via Ulysses) Terrible black and white factions! An overburdened game engine that crashes as much as it works.

    Neverwinter 1? Interesting game that got better with each piece of DLC released. Neverwinter 2? Barely functioning mess of a game that ends on a rocks fall everybody dies. DLC improved things a bit but not that much.

    Don't even get me started on the boring slog that is Dungeon Siege III.

    I swear it's like a company dedicated to taking previous game series' and then running them into the ground. It's a shame too since when they do their own work, the results are damned good. For example South Park and Pillars of Eternity. Alpha Protocol also had a lot of promise as well. I'd go for a sequel for that game.
    Looking to boost any MP achievements I don't have for any game I own.
  • SedgendarySedgendary284,144
    Posted on 31 July 16 at 17:36
    xSRYANx said:
    Ackter said:
    Multiple ways to complete a quest will always be superior to only one way of completing a quest.

    That's not subjective at all.
    That's like saying a choose your own novel is better than a well written one.

    If a game is made well, the one option should be entertaining/fun/engaging. Your argument is poor.
    Except he is not talking about the story of the quests but the design of them in an RPG, giving one option on how to complete a quest can ruin the experience in an RPG especially in main quests. For example you can create a character in Deus Ex Human Revolution that goes through the entire game without getting into conflict with anyone relying on stealth and their wits to get the objective done, except those boss fights which require you to do something your character isn't set up for which makes it annoying and out of place for that character.
  • WhyattThrashWhyattThrash407,364
    Posted on 31 July 16 at 18:36
    Sedgendary said:
    xSRYANx said:
    Ackter said:
    Multiple ways to complete a quest will always be superior to only one way of completing a quest.

    That's not subjective at all.
    That's like saying a choose your own novel is better than a well written one.

    If a game is made well, the one option should be entertaining/fun/engaging. Your argument is poor.
    Except he is not talking about the story of the quests but the design of them in an RPG, giving one option on how to complete a quest can ruin the experience in an RPG especially in main quests. For example you can create a character in Deus Ex Human Revolution that goes through the entire game without getting into conflict with anyone relying on stealth and their wits to get the objective done, except those boss fights which require you to do something your character isn't set up for which makes it annoying and out of place for that character.
    Deus Ex was fixed in an update to allow non-lethal takedowns of bosses
  • ShinnizleShinnizle1,154,891
    Posted on 31 July 16 at 18:55, Edited on 31 July 16 at 18:55 by Shinnizle
    Sedgendary said:
    For example you can create a character in Deus Ex Human Revolution that goes through the entire game without getting into conflict with anyone relying on stealth and their wits to get the objective done, except those boss fights which require you to do something your character isn't set up for which makes it annoying and out of place for that character.
    I know it's beside the point, but just get the Typhoon augmentation and just destroy the bosses. That way you don't have to carry weapons in your inventory just for the boss fights (you do have to make space for the Typhoon ammo though).
    Broke is a state of wallet. Poverty is a state of mind.
  • GrantX360GrantX360188,413
    Posted on 03 August 16 at 14:21
    I like this article, although I think you are caught in 2 minds here as a few people have said. As always though the success of any game is based on personal preference. After the fairly stagnant Gears Of War 3 I personally enjoyed what Judgement tried to do but I agree Halo 4 and 5 campaigns just haven't even nearly hit the highs of the first 3 games. For me Max Payne 3 was awful and not even close to the film noire style of the first game. Which goes down as one of the greatest of all time.

    A good read, thanks for sharing.
  • The GlobalizerThe Globalizer1,319,076
    Posted on 13 November 16 at 03:43
    Sorry to bring back a necrothread, but had to say two things:

    New Vegas is my favorite Fallout.
    Rogue is my favorite Assassin's Creed.

    BioShock 2 was inferior and I expect Batman: AO to be inferior to the fantastic AA and AC.
  • MagicalChildMagicalChild833,450
    Posted on 12 February 17 at 12:30
    Sedgendary said:
    xSRYANx said:
    Ackter said:
    Multiple ways to complete a quest will always be superior to only one way of completing a quest.

    That's not subjective at all.
    That's like saying a choose your own novel is better than a well written one.

    If a game is made well, the one option should be entertaining/fun/engaging. Your argument is poor.
    Except he is not talking about the story of the quests but the design of them in an RPG, giving one option on how to complete a quest can ruin the experience in an RPG especially in main quests. For example you can create a character in Deus Ex Human Revolution that goes through the entire game without getting into conflict with anyone relying on stealth and their wits to get the objective done, except those boss fights which require you to do something your character isn't set up for which makes it annoying and out of place for that character.
    Except that quest design has a great deal to do with story as your example proves. What feels as out of place for a character is largely based on what you know about them or associate with them, so... story.
    But I understand what you're aiming at. The problem in this case, however, is the inconsistency of providing one or multiple ways to complete the quest. smile


    Anyways, I wanted to give an example why I disagree with Ackter:
    Let's say there's a quest to "get whatever potion".
    Now Game A let's you "collect the ingredients to make the potion" while in Game B you either "dig out the potion in a forest" or "find the potion in a barrel" or "it's randomly dropped by a killed enemy".

    According to Ackter Game B is objectively superior. To me, Game A is the better one. Even though it provides only one way to complete the quest, that one way actually makes sense. The requirements in game B are way too random for my taste. And I'm sure, I'm not the only one to feel this way.
    In short, your statement is actually very subjective. wink
    I don't need to get a live. I'm a gamer. I have lots of lives!
  • Posted on 17 December 20 at 13:45
    Personally, I love Bioshock 2.

    I love it for many reasons – revisiting Rapture and its characters, learning more of its history, the art style, the music etc. But my Number 1 reason for loving Bioshock 2 is that its villain is the exact opposite of the villain in the original Bioshock. Andrew Ryan is an Anarcho-Capitalist. Sofia Lamb is an Authoritarian-Communist/Socialist. If the original Bioshock depicts what happens when a society is founded on the principles of Anarcho-Capitalism and followed absolutely, to the letter, without nuance or other guiding morals or principles, then Bioshock 2 shows what happens when a society is founded on the principles of the exact opposite ideology - Authoritarian-Communism/Socialism - and is followed with the exact same absolutism. The results are equally horrific and appalling dystopias. Ryan and Lamb are exact opposites of each other, yet they’re both equally destructive and morally repugnant.

    Sofia Lamb criticizes Andrew Ryan’s ideology for all the suffering it causes, yet she feels completely justified in causing the exact same level of suffering, if not more, herself - because when she does it, it’s in the name of “the greater good” (a justification we seem to be hearing in real life a lot recently). Sofia Lamb is exactly the kind of person Ayn Rand (the loose inspiration for Andrew Ryan) warned people about, the people that drove Ayn Rand to create her philosophy in the first place: as a child, Ayn Rand narrowly escaped the Bolsheviks, who would have tortured and killed her family if they had captured them (which is the exact same backstory of Andrew Ryan). It was suffering under oppression at the hands of Authoritarian-Communists that caused Ayn Rand to go so far in the other direction later in life.

    To me, this makes Bioshock 2 not only a worthy sequel but one that has one of the most interesting and nuanced ties to the source material of its original. It explores an aspect of Ayn Rand that the original Bioshock leaves completely untouched – the reason she was like that in the first place. In my opinion, this prevents the Bioshock franchise from being merely a simple critique of a single political ideology and elevates it into a critique of Absolutism in all its forms, and an examination of Political Horseshoe Theory (the theory that the opposite extremes are often more alike and have more in common with each other than they do with their own moderates). My favourite line in the game comes from Eleanor Lamb – I’m paraphrasing, but it goes something like “I’m no lover of Andrew Ryan’s society, but my mother would rather everyone be equally miserable and suffering so long as there’s no inequality…” Another line comes much later in the game from Sofia Lamb herself when she's explaining the philosophy of "the greater good" - the maximum amount of good and minimum bad, and how when you take into account the dimension of time, this justifies all actions no matter how evil because eventually it will lead to a greater amount of good - which is exactly the logic many dictators throughout history have used to justify mass murder.

    I’m a rare breed in that I actually like sequels. I don’t go for this nonsense that sequels are always inferior, always less artistically merited than their originals. A sequel done right can be amazing. But I don’t like sequels that just rehash the original, making the exact same point, exploring the exact same theme, re-treading the exact same ground (cough-JasonBourne-cough). The best sequels, in my opinion, go in the opposite direction of the original, even so far as to invert the original’s meaning. If the first game, or movie, or novel has a controlling idea, the sequel should explore the weaknesses and flaws of that idea, rather than just repeating it. One of the reasons The Dark Knight is such a good sequel is that its villain, the Joker, is the exact opposite of Batman Begins’ villain, Raj Al Ghul(sp?). Raj Al Ghul believes in order, in law, and he opposes chaos. His whole reason for wanting to destroy Gotham City is that he believes it’s too far gone and if it isn’t destroyed soon it will produce monsters bent on chaos. Batman disagrees with Ghul and prevents him from destroying the city. Fast-forward 6 months in the sequel and we learn that the city has produced a monster bent on chaos called the Joker – exactly what Raj Al Ghul was trying to prevent. Batman now has to find a way to defeat this chaotic villain, the Joker, without destroying the city. This is far more interesting than if the sequel’s villain was just a tougher, more formidable version of Raj Al Ghul. The Planet of the Apes reboot series does something similar. Sequels that re-examine the themes of their predecessor and look at things from an alternate point of view, exploring the flaws of the predecessor’s controlling idea, addressing its weaknesses, and even sometimes inverting its message, are always more interesting to me than a sequel that just does exactly what the original did, but bigger (although sometimes those can be great too).

    The only bad thing about Bioshock 2 is the Little Sister “Protector” segments – escort missions where the escorted character doesn’t even move... I’ll admit those bits are not good. But I’ve always suspected that the negative reception of Bioshock 2 is more to do with politics than gameplay. A lot of Lefty, armchair-Socialist types are drawn to Bioshock 1 because of its seeming critique of unrestrained Capitalism and Individualism. These fans will naturally despise Bioshock 2 for seemingly attacking their political ideology and worldview – Authoritarian-Socialism and Collectivism - in the same way. I’m not saying this is everyone who dislikes Bioshock 2, or that there aren’t valid reasons to dislike it, but I wouldn’t be surprised if a large portion of its negative critics are simply political idealists who are incapable of acknowledging that all political ideologies and worldviews, including their own, are bad when followed fanatically – which, if you listen to Ken Levine talk about it, is exactly what the original Bioshock’s message was in the first place.
Want to join in the discussion? Please log in or Register For Free to comment.