Why would anyone know who the lead designer of Gears of War is?

Yeah, that's kind of an annoying comment by Blez.

That is a really weird answer for what console he uses.

That is a really weird answer for what console he uses.

Not really. I think he just doesn't want to be hunted down and bugged, so he'd rather not answer.

Why would anyone know who the lead designer of Gears of War is?

He's a legitimate video game celebrity. He's not the Bill James of video game nerds, but he's at least a Thorn or Palmer.

I used to play video and computer games all the time and the only designer I knew was Sid Meier and the only reason I knew his name is because he put it on the title. I think the vast majority of people that play video games could only name one person related to video games and that is John Maddon And pretty much nobody, besides his mother, is going to be able to answer the "you know who my brother is" cold like that even if the guy asking it is Frank Meier.

Why would anyone know who the lead designer of Gears of War is?

FWIW, I read that more as the set-up to telling Beane, not that he would expect Beane to know.

I used to play video games all the time and the names I knew were Kojima and Miyamotu

The only video game designer I can name is my cousin, and I don't even know what games he's worked on.

He's not a designer, but didn't plenty of people know who John Carmack was?

Beane always skips the Vietnam stages. His Playstation don't work in the sh?t.

I know the name Ken Levine, because BioShock was extraordinary and I can hardly wait for Infinite.

I've been a slightly above casual gamer my entire life. Kojima and Notch (don't even know his real name) are the only names I know of anyone that is in the creation process of video games. I guess Curt Schilling is another, but that's kind of different.

I'm fairly familiar with development studios and/or publishers though which is probably more important than individual designers.

Good god, y'all.

Is it just me, or are there an extreme number of quality-to-potentially great games coming out this holiday season? I know every year there are a lot, but nothing quite this big. I don't know how many gamers we have around here (My time to play is not nearly as much as I would like), but I'd like to see this thread be hijacked into a game review thread for some of those titles. Since my time, and to a lesser extent disposable income, is limited, I'd like to have a wide range of opinions and information as to what games to pick up.

I rented Dead Island for a week. It's fun, but I'm not sure how much it will be over an extended playthru. After a week's worth of trying it out, it seems it could end up being a soulless boring game or a really enjoyable experience. I loved borderlands, actually I still play that one occasionally, and it never got boring to me. Dead Island seems different though, it's almost like it was forced at times. I guess deep down I don't want to play a zombie/horror game where you have to worry so much about looting, upgrading gear, leveling up, scalable enemy levels, etc.

Been playing Demon's souls for the 1st time ever the past week. What a ####### awesome game. I'm thinking of dropping it and going to pick up Dark Souls to experience more of a "live community".

Anyone tried id's new shooter, Rage, yet?

he's at least a Thorn or Palmer.

Who?

Well I had a female friend that worked in video once, but it was kind of on the down low in the home movies category...

The graphics were amazing though!

I'm pretty involved in game culture and I can only name a handful: Sid Meier, Suda51, Peter Molyneux and Tim Schafer and a handful of non-designers (e.x. Gabe Newell). I don't know the names of any of the designers for my favorite games.

didn't plenty of people know who John Carmack was?

John Romero as well.

knowing who writes the video game programs? ARE YOU KIDDING ME????

sigh

sometimes with youse geek/nerds honestly i feel like the (only one) Black sperm in that woody allen movie about all you everwanted to know about sex - like WHAT am i doing here?

except it is really tough to imagine myself as a sperm you know what i'm saying

TB: You know who my brother is, right?

BB: Dude, I only know who you are because you keep sexting me. That's really got to stop man.

Off the top of my head I can name Miyamoto, Kojima, Meier, Will Wright, Miles Jacobson and Fredrik Wester.

I loved borderlands, actually I still play that one occasionally, and it never got boring to me. Dead Island seems different though, it's almost like it was forced at times.

My pals and I loved Borderlands also, and completed it and all the DLC. We got Dead Island because it was supposed to be "Borderlands with zombies." First off, as I'm sure you know, we basically had to wait three weeks to play because the initial release was FUBAR until the (second) patch came out. Since then, it's been fun, but the game is a little samey. It doesn't have humor like Borderlands; the skills seem to be unexciting, +5% health regen this and +10% damage that; and we've only seen a couple different types of enemies. I suppose it's survival horror, so it's not supposed to be funny, and it wouldn't make any sense if you had skills such as "turn into a phoenix and burninate everything around you."¹ Still, I dunno.

We are only maybe 15% through the game (it certainly is a long game!) Right now, we are basically swinging sticks, with maybe some nails on the end if you're lucky. So it seems very possible that once you get better weapons and skills, it gets more interesting with more variety. Again, it's still fun multiplayer, but other than the sheer amount of content, I dunno if I'm going to end up feeling I got way more than my money's worth like I did with Borderlands.

¹ Of course, if realism is the goal, one could very fairly ask why a zombie in a bikini is carrying around $12, or why you then need to pay that money to an empty workbench in order to fix your weapons.

Cannot believe i didnt realize Blez and CliffyB were related. Knowing or not knowing video game designers is largely a function of the games you play; most RPG players know the various Square Enix guys, and people into the console wars tend to know the devs of their side's biggest projects, but nobody cares who the individual dudes working on Starcraft or WoW are.

¹ Of course, if realism is the goal, one could very fairly ask why a zombie in a bikini is carrying around $12, or why you then need to pay that money to an empty workbench in order to fix your weapons.

This drove me crazy playing the game. Not the fact that zombies had money, but why the #### am I worried about picking up cash? There was a zombie outbreak on a tropical island, no communications, and no way off the island. I could care less about collecting cash. That's a perfect example of the game feeling forced.

We are only maybe 15% through the game (it certainly is a long game!) Right now, we are basically swinging sticks, with maybe some nails on the end if you're lucky. So it seems very possible that once you get better weapons and skills, it gets more interesting with more variety.


I think I was ~10% through when I took it back, and yes all I had was sticks, bats, crowbars, etc. The one thing that drove me crazy was I'd find a "uncommon" strong stick, upgrade it twice, add some nails to it and then 30 min later I would find another weapon that was already better than my upgraded strong stick. Made it completely worthless for me to upgrade any weapons. Maybe that doesn't happen as much as you progress and the level curve spikes. Since borderlands didn't have the weapon upgrade/repair concept, the constant looting for weapons worked better. I wish there was no upgrade/repair of weapons (which would also reduce the need for in-game currency), but your weapons still degraded in quality (at a much slower pace obviously). That would make it a lot more fun of a survival adventure, having to decide when to bring out the badass crowbar, and when to just use a pipewrench.

Again, it's still fun multiplayer, but other than the sheer amount of content, I dunno if I'm going to end up feeling I got way more than my money's worth like I did with Borderlands.


I didn't get to try the multiplayer because of the buggy launch. Despite all of the things I hate about it, I still had some fun playing it. I definitely don't think it's worth $60, but I imagine it will be reduced a lot around Christmas, and I might pick it up then. Depends on how large my back log has grown by that point.

Not sure if you're a fan of Tom Bissell's game reviews he's doing on Grantland, but he had a great take on Dead Island. I think he hit on a lot of the points I disliked about the game, though his opinion of hate was a lot stronger than mine.

I know who Warren Robinett is.

Dead Island, on the 360 anyways, is a fantastic game. Especially the further along you get. Having the 360 version MAY or MAY NOT make a difference, but all the "bugs" I have heard about don't seem prevelent in the 360 version, only the PS3 version (at least AFAIK). I am at almost 20% through and their is quite a bit of fun to be had, if you know where to find it. The online multiplayer is nice, but I agree that has some flaws that could be addressed. All in all, well worth the money. The replay value is insane, as there are 4 different stories to play through which will vary depending on how much you assist the other survivors.

P.S. I haven't seen it for $60 or so since the first week of it's release, it's been as low as $45 New on Amazon as recently as a few days ago.

Beane didn't have to know the names of video game designers. He hired DePo to know that for him.

TB: Well, you're a conservative guy who is into punk rock. I gotta say, I don't know too many of those.

BB: That means nobody can nail me down (laughs). I have a lot of friends and a lot of interests and I find it very stimulating to be interested by a lot of things. When you go on the road, one of our well-known players used to have trouble sleeping and I used to tell him, "What do you mean you have trouble sleeping? There are so many great books to read. Get yourself a great book." You know, there's not enough time in the world to read all the great books that are out there, and all the things that are out there to read and to be interested in and he wasn't quite buying that.

TB: Wasn't a big reader?

BB: Yeah, he immediately informed me that he had read two books and said that he really wasn't that into reading. So I realized I was going nowhere with that one. I think what I was doing was just...

TB: It was (Nick) Swisher, wasn't it?

BB: No, it wasn't Nick. Good guess, but it wasn't him.

Cute.

I think I was ~10% through when I took it back, and yes all I had was sticks, bats, crowbars, etc. The one thing that drove me crazy was I'd find a "uncommon" strong stick, upgrade it twice, add some nails to it and then 30 min later I would find another weapon that was already better than my upgraded strong stick. Made it completely worthless for me to upgrade any weapons. Maybe that doesn't happen as much as you progress and the level curve spikes. Since borderlands didn't have the weapon upgrade/repair concept, the constant looting for weapons worked better. I wish there was no upgrade/repair of weapons (which would also reduce the need for in-game currency), but your weapons still degraded in quality (at a much slower pace obviously). That would make it a lot more fun of a survival adventure, having to decide when to bring out the badass crowbar, and when to just use a pipewrench.

I think the frustrations you are getting are from HOW you are going through the game. At 10% I was picking up really cool stuff like Axes, Machetes, etc. How/when you upgrade, the side quests.....your level of enjoyment seems to hinge on these aspects f the game that most seem to be overlooking. Is it due to a rush to finish the game quickly? If so, take your time. You'll find it's quite enjoyable with the right approach.

I think the frustrations you are getting are from HOW you are going through the game. At 10% I was picking up really cool stuff like Axes, Machetes, etc. How/when you upgrade, the side quests.....your level of enjoyment seems to hinge on these aspects f the game that most seem to be overlooking. Is it due to a rush to finish the game quickly? If so, take your time. You'll find it's quite enjoyable with the right approach.

I was doing primarily side quests and just random personal adventures into the environment. It was not enjoyable to drop $x into a weapon then 20 minutes later find a weapon far greater, and have that repeat itself over and over and over. Plus it was mildly aggravating having to constantly repair weapons, the better the weapon the more the cost. There was no "oh #### there are a bunch of zombies I have to run", or "I've been playing for 5 hours and I've found one healing item". Survival was all tied to money and managing your weapon's level/condition, and to me I'm not sure how that works in a zombie game.

I'm replaying Final Fantasy VIII.

but nobody cares who the individual dudes working on Starcraft or WoW are.

I could name a few...but I couldn't name console guys these days. I don't even remember the last time I played a console game and my most recent system is still the PS2.

I was doing primarily side quests and just random personal adventures into the environment. It was not enjoyable to drop $x into a weapon then 20 minutes later find a weapon far greater, and have that repeat itself over and over and over. Plus it was mildly aggravating having to constantly repair weapons, the better the weapon the more the cost. There was no "oh #### there are a bunch of zombies I have to run", or "I've been playing for 5 hours and I've found one healing item". Survival was all tied to money and managing your weapon's level/condition, and to me I'm not sure how that works in a zombie game.

Right, but then you take the then obsolete item and sell it for more money....there are several places to do this. You get a decent return on your investment. Don't just "drop" the useless item. Sell it. I get the point that money really ought to be obsolete as far as the theme of the game goes, but it makes sense as a way to be able to upgrade continiously. Part of the game is knowing WHEN to upgrade or not. You can tell because if you are doing the quests in a somewhat coherent order (there is an order), you'll get weapons about a level or two before you can even use them. This gives you an idea of which of your weapons will be obsolete soon if you compare the ratings. Sell the worthless weapons and acquire new, more powerful ones. Basically, I found it is essential to focus on the "Survival" upgrades to eliminate some of the frustrations you speak of. It increases money earned, gives you lockpicking abilities (finding better weapons, sooner) and the ability to carry more in your inventory. Once you get access to Axes and the like, decapitating the bastards is an awful lot of fun....then the Molotov Cocktails come into play and it's LOADS of fun.

Once you get access to Axes and the like, decapitating the bastards is an awful lot of fun....then the Molotov Cocktails come into play and it's LOADS of fun.

I agree with that. Even though I was the "blunt weapon" character, I still carried around a machete just to remove heads/limbs on one swing. My favorite thing to do was to surgically remove both arms on a thug and watch him fall over trying to headbutt me. I love the analog controls for combat, made the game that much more engaging.

I don't even remember the last time I played a console game and my most recent system is still the PS2.

There are so many great games for the PS2. I still have mine (it does lock up from time to time), and couldn't imagine getting rid of it.

I do have PS3. Even post-patch, there are still some problems with people getting kicked and crashes. (Cars seem to be the primary cause of crashes. There was one fun moment where the driver of the car leveled up just as the car ran into the side of the road. The car proceeded to make like Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, flying off the road, flying off the edge of the cliff that the road was on, flying over the island, and presumably flying all the way into the great wide open until we reset the game.) Those things are annoying, and I still want them patched, but at least you can work around them. The really important thing is whether game-destroying things such as saved games getting zapped are a thing of the past. None yet for me, but then again, I've only had one gaming session since the patch.

I did read the Grantland review, and didn't really agree with it. I thought some of his criticisms (weird inventory system, not being able to drown yourself swimming) were technically correct, and yet wouldn't make the game any better if they were changed. His larger point seems to be about the skills and D&D-style damage. The thing there is that, if anything, the game errs on the side of being too stripped down as it is. Sure seems to me that taking away skills and damage would leave you with a game that literally consists of "here's a stick, let's count how many zombies you can kill before they kill you." The only thing that he identified that bothered me was the "money" aspect. It really makes no sense, and I feel like it would have been easy to get to the same goal with a different, more logical mechanism.

(PN: Lockpicking is worth it? I keep reading otherwise :) Haven't tried it myself, for that reason.)

Re: how geeky it is to know who wrote a video game: Lemme just quickly note that ever since the Internet and whatever the hell else, all "behind-the-scenes" people in entertainment are much more household names than they used to be. Television/movie screenwriters, TV showrunners, comic book writers, video game producers, baseball general managers... they're all much bigger celebrities than they were a couple of decades ago. And it makes perfect sense, since, y'know, they all have extremely important jobs in their fields. So if you care about that field, you want to know about them, and maybe follow particular ones whom you think do good work.

I know who Warren Robinett is.

I like you.

I like you.

Thanks. I burned many, many hours on that game.

I don't console much nowadays. My kids do (they've got a PS3 and a 360, as well as older consoles), but I have trouble finding the time. I tend to stick to PC gaming (I can even play while we're watching some mediocre cop show), and I tend to stick to games that aren't real-time so that I can pause and take care of whatever I need to take care of. (I love my wife dearly, but one thing I'll never get her to accept is, "Can you hang on a minute? I just need to finish this battle.")

My major exception to that is Star Trek Online, which is threatening to consume my life in a fairly unhealthy fashion. But I mostly solo, so I can still bail if I need to take care of something for work or home.

And of course, I play Out of the Park Baseball. Wish I could take my record as Cubs GM and somehow upload it to Tom Ricketts so he'll consider me.

His larger point seems to be about the skills and D&D-style damage. The thing there is that, if anything, the game errs on the side of being too stripped down as it is. Sure seems to me that taking away skills and damage would leave you with a game that literally consists of "here's a stick, let's count how many zombies you can kill before they can kill you".

I don't know if I would say it's stripped down, I mean the zombies have levels, and randomized loot, and there are different classes of zombies. When you think about it, that's robust for zombies. I guess it could be stripped down compared to an Elder Scrolls type of game.

I think the point of the game should be to survive and explore (more correctly in the reverse order), not to level up nor to kill an arbitrary number of enemies. I do enjoy RPGSs, ones that can engage me beyond just trying to increase my level. That's why I can't get into MMOs. I've tried a few and everyone of them boil down to reach level 30 so you can reach 31, repeat!. Outside of the awesome combat gameplay, Dead Island feels a lot like those number grinding RPGs/MMOs.

I didn't hate the game, I was extremely uninterested & mildly disappointed after I started playing it though. I would like to give it another chance sometime. I have a PS3 also DA, I might hit you up if I ever do pick it back up. Maybe some co-op would help.

I'm replaying Final Fantasy VIII.

Weird, I'm replaying FF VII. Might do VIII after, if nothing better has popped up to waste my time on by then...

I do enjoy RPGSs, ones that can engage me beyond just trying to increase my level. That's why I can't get into MMOs.

I'm far from an MMO expert, but I totally get where you're coming from. Thing is, MMOs often end up catering to different types of players.

When I play STO, I almost always play solo. I play story missions. These started out fairly simple but have gotten more sophisticated, with some eschewing combat altogether for diplomacy or other things. One in particular involves solving a murder mystery.

Of course, the vast majority still involve combat, because that's what the majority of players still want to do. And that's cool; starship combat is a blast.

Anyway, my point is that MMOs don't have to be grindfests. Good MMOs should be working to continually add interesting stuff to do to reduce/eliminate the grind.

On the other hand, I have little or no interest in PvP, which is what a lot of players live for, so maybe you can't go by me.

I'm replaying Final Fantasy VIII.

What one was VIII again? I seem to remember one of them sucked really bad in that SNES-PS range.

IX was the pretty crappy one, IMO. That was the one with the medieval leanings in the environment and the really weird characters that supported the hero. I never got very far.

VIII was the storyline about the group of orphans trained to be fighters. The storyline is absolutely epic, but a glitch in the replayability is that you can't skip through the movie scenes that advance the plot. It's especially annoying since this time around, I'm playing with a walk-thru and trying to complete all the side quests, and when I forget something, I have to go back to a previously saved game and sit through them yet again.

I didn't play a lot of FF games, I watched my brother play them religiously. After doing some research, I remembered I played through VII, and parts of VIII and IX, while watching parts of all 3 of them. I also tried X and X-2 later on the PS2 and disliked them completely.

I liked the GFs in VIII, but could not stand the characters and didn't care for the spell cards. My memories of IX are hazey and incomplete.

Elder Scrolls

Speaking of...I am very excited for Skyrim. Love those games. Don't really care about the main quest, I just like getting to a point where I am omnipotent.

I do enjoy RPGSs, ones that can engage me beyond just trying to increase my level. That's why I can't get into MMOs.

I prefer RPGs because I just don't want to have to deal with others. At times I don't mind the interaction, but I play games for my own personal time, I don't want that messed with by someone trolling.

I've only played one Final Fantasy and that was FF XII. It was interesting but I do remember simply sitting in the desert killing rats for hours to level up.

I prefer RPGs because I just don't want to have to deal with others. At times I don't mind the interaction, but I play games for my own personal time, I don't want that messed with by someone trolling.

I think many MMOs will more or less allow this. I know I play STO for hours on end unmolested. I can interact with others if I want, and every once in a great while I will get a team or fleet (a.k.a. guild) invite, but I just ignore them.

Except when teaming with my kids, I pretty much treat STO as a solo RTS/RPG game.

It was interesting but I do remember simply sitting in the desert killing rats for hours to level up.

That's kind of the flaw with all of those games, right?

I lost interest in Final Fantasy when they stopped making the characters adorable.

Speaking of...I am very excited for Skyrim. Love those games. Don't really care about the main quest, I just like getting to a point where I am omnipotent.

This is actually one thing I dislike about RPGs (though on the whole I love them and am looking forward to Skyrim as well. Or rather, looking forward to when I can buy a used copy for $10). I'd like a game where as your character develops along certain lines, others are shut off from him/her. It's kind of boring just being super man. Of course, you can just do this yourself. I've played a characters in Oblivion where I won't allow him to use weapons, or another one never used magic (aside from heals). But it would be cool to have a game where time spent learning spells is time not spent maintaining your body, or a brawler wears his body down as the game progresses. I actually haven't played a lot of modern RPGs aside from Elder Scrolls stuff so maybe there are games like this.

This is actually one thing I dislike about RPGs (though on the whole I love them and am looking forward to Skyrim as well. Or rather, looking forward to when I can buy a used copy for $10). I'd like a game where as your character develops along certain lines, others are shut off from him/her. It's kind of boring just being super man. Of course, you can just do this yourself. I've played a characters in Oblivion where I won't allow him to use weapons, or another one never used magic (aside from heals). But it would be cool to have a game where time spent learning spells is time not spent maintaining your body, or a brawler wears his body down as the game progresses. I actually haven't played a lot of modern RPGs aside from Elder Scrolls stuff so maybe there are games like this.

I get where you are coming from, and I agree, but I am a completionist - I must finish all the quests (except for the main, because everything else must be done first damnit) - so that tends to lead towards domination. At the start when I am really into the game I tend to focus on one or two of the 'guild' lines (fighter and thief or assassin typically) so those associated skills tend to advance ahead of the others. By the time I get to the, say, mage quests I just bash my way through.

I have tried to play with self-limited roles, just so hard to willingly gimp myself. And as a fairly athletic, fairly intelligent RPG gamer in high school I guess I got a little annoyed with all the typical game archetypes - skinny mage, strong but dumb fighter, small thief, etc. I prefer a nice bow to snipe someone from at far, toss a fireball as they charge and then crush them with a sword as they get close.

Of course, the vast majority still involve combat, because that's what the majority of players still want to do. And that's cool; starship combat is a blast.

Prepares to wax enthusiastic about EVE Online...

On the other hand, I have little or no interest in PvP, which is what a lot of players live for, so maybe you can't go by me.

Nevermind.

actually haven't played a lot of modern RPGs aside from Elder Scrolls stuff so maybe there are games like this.

Elder Scrolls games are probably some of the worst RPG offenders in terms of allowing players to turn their character into an omnipotent superman. Morrowind and Oblivion in particular require purposeful acts of will to avoid doing just that... you pretty much have to intentionally limit yourself as you describe above.

Prepares to wax enthusiastic about EVE Online...

Actually, please do. I've been told by several folks that EVE Online is a lot of fun. What do you like about it?

Speaking of...I am very excited for Skyrim. Love those games. Don't really care about the main quest, I just like getting to a point where I am omnipotent.

Skyrim is the kind of game that should be right in my wheelhouse, but I can't get beyond the Elder Scrolls' leveling system. I'm fine with skills increasing from use, but tying that to stat increases leads to situations where I stand still and spam a spell, or sneak in a room with a sleeping NPC, for 30 minutes before I can level up. I know I could level up without maximum stat increases, but knowing they are so close makes it impossible, and getting there is so boring.



Eight days until Arkham City, which I'm really excited for. Arkham Asylum may have been the most immersive* game I've ever played and the combat controls and flow were practically art.


*Other games can get me to think like the player character or treat the player character as a proxy, but Arkham Asylum was the best at making me think I actually am the player character.

Skyrim is the kind of game that should be right in my wheelhouse, but I can't get beyond the Elder Scrolls' leveling system. I'm fine with skills increasing from use, but tying that to stat increases leads to situations where I stand still and spam a spell, or sneak in a room with a sleeping NPC, for 30 minutes before I can level up. I know I could level up without maximum stat increases, but knowing they are so close makes it impossible, and getting there is so boring.

Thank you for bringing that up.

I absolutely hated this about Oblivion. I'm not a completionist by any means, I routinely just arbitrary quit games when they have met their shelf life for me. Yet I'm like you, if I know I have to raise my blocking 10 levels to increase my endurance 5, then I'm going to set there and let a crab go to town on my shield for 2 hours while I surf the web. What made it worse was the entire game leveled with you, so if you just level up your major skills real fast, and didn't get big stat attribute increases, your character could be ######. I would put skills that were easily controlled, or worse ones I didn't use much, as the major ones, just to maximize your stats leveling. I put 30-40 hours into Oblivion, before I just got fed up with the counter-intuitive leveling/scaling system, and I quit. Seemed interesting and entertaining though outside of that major hurdle. I thought about starting over and not caring about maximizing attributes, but then I was afraid of getting 60-70 hours and just have a weak char and getting stuck.

Supposedly Skyrim's leveling system is completely different with skill trees (YAY!!) and perk based attributes.

Eight days until Arkham City, which I'm really excited for. Arkham Asylum may have been the most immersive* game I've ever played and the combat controls and flow were practically art.

I thought Arkham Asylum was good, but over rated. I think if the scenery and voice acting wasn't batman, but instead was some made up character, it wouldn't have been half as popular. I still really enjoyed it, but part of that is because well it was a ####### good Batman game. The combat was art to look at, but not to control, as it was a lot of paper/rock/scissor games. Oh knife guy, that's the [] button, Oh stun rod guy, that's the ^ button, etc. To me the combat and controls for Ninja Gaiden Sigma/Black are art. The player has a ridiculous number of ways to combo, move, react, attack, defend, etc given different scenarios, and no 2 people will play it the same way. You get into a good flow on that game, with hordes of enemies coming after you, and that's the best pure combat in an action game period.

*Other games can get me to think like the player character or treat the player character as a proxy, but Arkham Asylum was the best at making me think I actually am the player character.

Bioshock, Dead Space, and Uncharted are the best I've played in this gen that give me the "immersion" feeling. GTA IV was great, but it was more of a proxy feeling.

Chris Roberts.

Why would anyone know who the lead designer of Gears of War is?

I know who CliffyB is, because of that ridiculous name and his penchant for ridiculous photos like this.

If you like games with good combat and haven't played Bayonetta yet you are really cheating yourself. Amazingly tight gameplay with the exception of a few instadeath QTEs scattered about. Also, hilarious.

I don't game quite as consistently as I used to. In the last year I've beaten Nier, Disgaea 3, replayed the various DS Castlevanias, and taken stabs into Alpha Protocol and a few others. My roommate just got Dark Souls, which promises to be a barrel of schadenfreude-induced laughter.

Prepares to wax enthusiastic about EVE Online...

Actually, please do. I've been told by several folks that EVE Online is a lot of fun. What do you like about it?

Well, I'm primarily a PvP focused player, and internet spaceship PvP is the heart of EVE, so it's right up my alley. I also like the fact that the PvP has consequences unlike pretty much every other MMO. If you die, your ship is gone and all your modules (equipment) and cargo is left to be looted by your killers (or random passers by). The PvE isn't particularly interesting unless you're doing it someplace where you're at risk of getting attacked, in which case it can be thrilling playing cat and mouse with the people trying to kill you. The game has a brutally difficult learning curve and will savagely punish stupid or inept play, but can be very rewarding for smart, careful players.

Let me know if you really want to know more.

If you like games with good combat and haven't played Bayonetta yet

Bayonetta was such a bizarre game. Japanese people are weird. I button-mashed my way halfway through and gave up, but I've never cared too much about combat so I'm not one to judge.

Oblivion's combat, however, was pretty dull to me - playing as a soldier was just repetitive, and nearly impossible because leveling system was so broken. The only way I could finish the game without eventually being overwhelmed by high-level enemies was to play as a summoning mage and spawn demons to fight for me. Fallout 3 was great though by virtue of having guns. I wish there was a game that paired Fallout's gameplay with Oblivion's level design though - Oblivion LOOKED amazing, and I loved all the little architectural differences from town to town. Fallout had great level design, but it was just so (intentionally) monotonous and depressing that playing it for extended periods could be soul-crushing.

I'm stoked for Mass Effect 3 and The Last Guardian. Mass Effect is just incredibly engrossing sci-fi - I've played both of the first two like three times each (and read the books and the comics...heh) - and Shadow of the Colossus is one of my favorite games of all time, so anything else by Team Ico has me feeling like a little kid at Christmas. They keep delaying it, though! What the hell!

I'm not optimistic at all about Mass Effect 3. The main plot of 2 was a complete fiasco, and apparently the Reapers' plan, after millennia to hone it, is to land on a planet make zombies and shoot lasers? I suppose it is possible that everything Sovereign said in Mass Effect was just trash talk and bullshit. I don't appreciate the Reapers turning into mustache twirling villains with a grudge against Shepard. Bioware is trying to have its cake and eat it too; if the Reapers' pedestrian behavior and motivations were supposed to be a big reveal, they can't keep pretending they are some unknowable force. I suppose it's possible, but I don't get the feeling that the entire series is an exercise in dramatic irony.


The Arrival DLC really soured me on ME3 as well. I can accept that there was no choice but to kill those Batarians to delay the Reapers, but taking the choice entirely out of my hands, entirely within a cutscene is unforgivable. Even if there were no options, actually having to push a controller button would have been preferable. The ability to not push the button, and receive a black screen saying I doomed the galaxy would have been vastly preferable. The Shepard I played through the DLC was imported from ME1 and played all the way through ME2, but I won't import him into ME3. Bioware killed my character by making him act so out of character, without any player input.

I can name three game designers.

A) Shigeru Miyamoto
B) That SimCity guy, Will Wheaton or something
C) The fat guy that nerds love because he answers emails

I'm surprised to say that I don't know the Arrival DLC. I thought I bought and played every DLC there was this summer, but maybe I missed one.

As far as the plot of 2...I thought it was epic as ####. It didn't have anything as brain-######### awesome as the final Ilos portion of ME1, and the Firewalker and Zaeed DLC sucked, but I thought the game as a whole was even better than the first.

The Shadow Broker DLC was great, thought.

Bayonetta was such a bizarre game. Japanese people are weird. I button-mashed my way halfway through and gave up, but I've never cared too much about combat so I'm not one to judge.

Yeah I played the demo and I got the impression it was a button masher. But yeah in general Japanese games are weird and have gotten a lot weirder since the rise of the major US development studios. They occasionally can still make some great unique games like Demon's Souls & Valkyria Chronicles.

I loved Oblivion and can't wait for Skyrim. My little brother was having trouble with Oblivion so I helped him get to the arcane university and built him a sword that would kill anything at any level, he seemed to enjoy the game much more after that.

But what do I know, I've spent the last week replaying Star Fox 64 on 3DS obsessively.

So is no one excited for Uncharted 3? I absolutely loved the last one, both single and multiplayer.

but I thought the game as a whole was even better than the first.

If nothing else it fixed the two glaring, screaming flaws in the original: the inventory system and the Mako segments. It rather ruins the tension of the assault on Virmire when I have to stop in the middle of a firefight and decide which 15 items I can safely drop because I'm at my limit.

Even the one silly mechanic in 2 (the resource mining) I grew to find addictive.

If nothing else it fixed the two glaring, screaming flaws in the original: the inventory system and the Mako segments.

The inventory system in particular drove me absolutely crazy towards the end of ME1. The Mako sections I could deal with (especially once I figured out how to aim the ####### gun), but constantly shuffling through the inventory could make the game almost unplayably tedious at times.

This, however, was more than made up for by the Ilos bit, which is still one of the most insanely awesome sci-fi moments I've ever experienced, and maybe my favorite ending to a game since Ocarina of Time.

I absolutely hated this about Oblivion. I'm not a completionist by any means, I routinely just arbitrary quit games when they have met their shelf life for me. Yet I'm like you, if I know I have to raise my blocking 10 levels to increase my endurance 5, then I'm going to set there and let a crab go to town on my shield for 2 hours while I surf the web. What made it worse was the entire game leveled with you, so if you just level up your major skills real fast, and didn't get big stat attribute increases, your character could be ######. I would put skills that were easily controlled, or worse ones I didn't use much, as the major ones, just to maximize your stats leveling. I put 30-40 hours into Oblivion, before I just got fed up with the counter-intuitive leveling/scaling system, and I quit. Seemed interesting and entertaining though outside of that major hurdle. I thought about starting over and not caring about maximizing attributes, but then I was afraid of getting 60-70 hours and just have a weak char and getting stuck.

I hear you. I should note that I played a few hours with no mods and then went loaded one of the quite large mods that changed the leveling system. The game was still tied to your level but to a much smaller degree and level 'zones' were added. Fights around the main lake for the most part stayed easy whereas certain caves or the outer regions were deathtraps for the inexperienced. It allowed you to make noticeable gains when gaining a few levels. One of the things I think Oblivion did well was the difficulty slider that could be adjusted at any time. It changed damage given and damage taken - the easiest setting made any fight simple, whereas the hardest setting was brutal. Even with a good game plan you needed some skill to win.

Oblivion LOOKED amazing, and I loved all the little architectural differences from town to town.

Town to town, sure, but the caverns got old real fast. Supposedly one guy designed them all. And it showed.

C) The fat guy that nerds love because he answers emails

Steve Wozniak?

This, however, was more than made up for by the Ilos bit, which is still one of the most insanely awesome sci-fi moments I've ever experienced, and maybe my favorite ending to a game since Ocarina of Time.

Are you referring to the conversation with Vigil, some other moment or just the entire Ilos battle? I remember thinking it was a fairly pedestrian penultimate fight, though I did love the Vigil bits. Other than that, the only things I found particularly notable about Ilos were Pressley's hilariously over-the-top lines as the Normandy is coming in to land.

"THERE IS NO OTHER LANDING ZONE!"

All this RPG talk has me wanting to download an emulator and play through Chrono Trigger again.

EDIT: And I see Chrono Cross is available on the JPN PSN store. I assume that means I can't buy it in the US?

(PN: Lockpicking is worth it? I keep reading otherwise :) Haven't tried it myself, for that reason.)

I certainly think so. I have found some pretty cool stuff with it. I really enjoy exploring/surviving, and it helps. Though, I am not someone who is trying to beat the game in record time. I just like taking my time and enjoying myself. This game allows for that.

Bayonetta is pretty much the exact opposite of a button masher; it's all about carefully stringing together combos with dodge-cancels. There are tons of little tricks to ramping up your score. On a similar level of great combat and crazy Japanese things, I recommend all PS3 owners check out Godhand. Developed by Clover (the people who brought you Okami and Viewtiful Joe), it is a tank control brawler with challenging yet rewarding gameplay and...uh...characters. Its ten bucks on PSN, so you really should just play the damn game.

And I see Chrono Cross is available on the JPN PSN store. I assume that means I can't buy it in the US?

Well, only 1 solution to that... download a PS1 emulator, and a Chrono Cross rom!

Oblivion LOOKED amazing, and I loved all the little architectural differences from town to town.

Even that became vexing; magnificent capitol city with soaring spires and mammoth buildings, sure, but then you walk around and see that it's populated by a dozen people, half of them guards. The cities in Oblivion were as shiny and lifeless and Walt Disney World at 3AM.

Oblivion was a huge disappoint for me, and I have little hope Skyrim will be any better until the modders get a year or so to spiff it up. If y'all are keen on PC RPGs I hope you haven't missed the boat on the two "Witcher" games.

I looked up some videos of Godhand on youtube, since I've never heard of it. Yeah Japanese games are weird (make sure you check out the... uhmm... move at 0:17. Honestly after watching some videos I'm not sure I could get past everything else to enjoy the combat.

After only playing the demo (I know, I know, sss), Boyonetta left me with the impression it was a slightly more button-master-ish game than DMC*. Not necessarily a complaint, I loved the first DMC (I played the 2nd one and it left such a bad taste in my mouth I haven't tried any more since), but I'm going to need more than that to get by all the hair attacks, gun boots, and other general wackiness.




*The Action/Hack n Slash button mashing scale. Sorted from most to least mindless button mashing

- Dante Inferno - it take a special game to beat out God of War.
- God of War series
- Dynasty Warriors - yeah it's relentless, but each character has 6-7 combos and their are usually 30+ characters, so the variety is there. Plus the difficulty really ramps up on chaos mode, to wear 1-2 hit kills are common.
---
- Darksiders - more adventure game, but hack-n-slash combat.
---
- Bayonetta
- DMC
---
- Batman - again more adventure, but the combat is very hack-n-slash with fists. It does take a lot of read and reacting, even if there isn't much in the way of tactics involved.
--
--
- Current generation Ninja Gaiden series

Billy Beane will be on that soccer podcast he said he listens to in the New York Times this Friday (10/28) and it should be good. It will be on LIVE at around 10AM PT and can be listened to on www.WorldFootballDaily.com for free.

Anyone tried Batman: Arkham City yet? Here is Bissell's review if anyone is interested.

I don't know if our limited gamer sub section plays games like uncharted, but I'm going to be picking that title up Tuesday. The last installment was so amazing

I"m playing through FFVI again right now. I'd forgotten how good that game was (and how different dessign was then. They throw you in a world and let you figure it out). I'm also playing Deus Ex, which I like, but not as much as most.

Not sure if anyone will see this, but Dark Souls is ####### awesome. This coming from someone who only put a few hours into Demon's Souls and found it to just be ok. The "open world", level design, and unique art/style for each area is amazing.

What's the time commitment needed for Dark Souls?

There is a learning curve, that requires a little time commitment. There is no concept of a quest marker, next area, or even much of a story to direct you to the right direction. It's entirely possible to start the game up and go into an area that is way too difficult for a starting character, but continue to do it over and over because you know the game is hard and their is probably a reward for killing all those skeletons (yes I wasted a few hours doing that). There is not "set path" you must take, in fact I have completed several areas out of order from the guides I've seen online, but you'll figure out soon enough if you're lost. I was also inexperienced with Demon's Souls, so there was an adjustment when it came to combat and game difficulty.

I say I'm roughly 50% through the game, have logged something like 45 hours. I would guess that at least 15 hours of that was due to me exploring and trying to tackle an area I'm under leveled/equipped for. If you went full wiki, you could beat it in under 40-50 hours.

EDIT: I should also say, I play games terribly slow. Even short action games like Dead Space always take me 30-50% longer than the intended play through time. With the little time I get to play games, I should learn to just run through them.

EDIT 2: Plus there are the online segments. There are entire factions in the game where their story revolves around combat in PvP (invading other factions, defending an area, helping over people in faction, etc). You can summon other players to help you clear levels & bosses, but you can also be invaded by an attacker as well. Both situations add/subtract from overall play time. I spent some time in PvP battles as a member of a certain faction "defending" an area of the game from trespassers. It was fun, could be rewarding (winning PvP gives you items/exp), and a refreshing change from knocking around game AI.

This thread pushed me towards getting back into gaming. I bought the Uncharted combo pack and Borderlands. I haven't touched Uncharted 2 yet, but I've reached a point in Uncharted 1 where my rusty gaming skills are keeping me from advancing. It's also pretty early in the game so I'm kind of embarrassed. That lead me to start playing Borderlands and while I'm still early in that game as well I'm really enjoying it. The weapon inventory system can get overwhelming at times though.

That lead me to start playing Borderlands and while I'm still early in that game as well I'm really enjoying it. The weapon inventory system can get overwhelming at times though.

Borderlands is exponentially better if you play it with friends. With the lack of emotional investment in the character and the difficulty and loot scaling - the game is intended to be a co-op experience. It offers a few different modes: splitscreen, LAN, public/private online. Most of the time I played it LAN style with a friend or 2 in my living room or with friends in a private game.

Borderlands is exponentially better if you play it with friends. With the lack of emotional investment in the character and the difficulty and loot scaling - the game is intended to be a co-op experience. It offers a few different modes: splitscreen, LAN, public/private online. Most of the time I played it LAN style with a friend or 2 in my living room or with friends in a private game.

Loot scaling?

If I've already started a solo campaign, can I just go online and play with others?

Loot scaling?

The higher the difficulty, the better the loot drops (both in terms of value and rarity) and experience gains. The difficulty in Borderlands increases when more players are in the game.

If I've already started a solo campaign, can I just go online and play with others?

Yep. Your character and campaign can drop in and out of online, LAN, splitscreen games no problem. In co-op format, someone is the "host" and they are the ones picking the missions, but everyone will get experience & status for completed missions if they have not previously completed them. I'm not sure what type of community still exists for the game, it's a few years old, but it might be worth looking for public games next time you play. Quick jump to the PS3/360 boards on gamefaqs shows there are people who looking to play online, both new players and veterans.

[86] Thanks for the info, I'll give it a shot this weekend.

What system are you playing on NJ? I haven't played borderlands forever, and I might have some time this weekend to join a game. I play on PS3.

I'm on PS3, my username is "njasdjdh"