Great story and even better ideas about consequences, but even then it was a rough gameplay experience.
It makes more sense when you realise it was originally going to be a PC port of Baldur’s Gate: Dark Alliance, but it leads to this awkward mix of gameplay styles that are hard to grasp at first. There’s really not much to the combat other than clicking when the icon glows and moving.
The hardest fight in the game is a dog very early on, which you can cheese by stunning it with Aard (RNG based iirc) and landing a one hit finisher, but the fact that there’s an unskippable lengthy cutscene right before it is absolutely obnoxious. And fighting something two levels above you is a death sentence, leading to a bit of exploring to get enough XP to be able to do everything.
By TSE do they mean TES. That’d still be weird considering I think more people would have had either Skyrim or Oblivion be their first entry, and not Morrowind
Yeah but even dedicated elder scrolls fans aren’t going to go back and play through arena and daggerfall. Morrowind definitely feels old but from my perspective still feels very playable and understandable from a modern context. Daggerfall and arena are a different beast entirely and are a little more intimidating for the average gamer.
Thats a fair point! I’ve loved every entry of TES since Morrowind, yet I’ve never felt the urge to play Daggerfall or the first, and I dont think I ever will
I have played the first and second witcher games! I am sure that the first one has a lot of good stuff but all I really took away was that it was weird relative to modern games and it took a lot of willpower to finish. The second game is bad fucking ass! Buuuut the difficulty scaling and overall pacing is a bit odd. For example you can play on a relatively high difficulty and the base gameplay is very reasonable and fun but the bosses are just absolutely batshit and you’ll get stuck in a loop where youre dying about 2.5 seconds after reloading endlessly edit: and if you haven’t played 3 youre missing out! It is super fun and playing on death march is actually really rewarding and fun
First one has the best Alchemy system of the three, which only got progressively worse with each entry. I also felt more satisfaction researching monsters and their strengths/weaknesses prior to encounters in 1. The other games for whatever reason didn’t quite scratch that same itch, but were obviously better in most other ways. All in all, I think I liked 1 and 3 the most.
The Witcher 1 is a pretty standard CRPG styled like the original Baldur’s Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Knights of the Old Republic, etc, and all essentially running a modified Dungeons and Dragons ruleset behind the scenes.
It probably did feel a little dated because it simply was dated, even for 2007 and with some of the changes they made to keep things interesting.
I absolutely love Fallout 1 & 2. They are personal favorites. Far Cry 1 was also incredible, but the only ones I’ve touched after were Primal and Blood Dragon. I really need to try out the early GTAs though.
Such bizzare moment when someone acknowledged megaten series and its fanbase on this kind of forum.
Fallout 1(!) and 2 is still enjoyable due to its turn based and variety of char build. Although may be frustating if you do not understand how the game played.
Meanwhile on Saints Row series, the best are on 1 & 2 (back when they have more grounded story though they have whacky side content).
Well “far cry fans” are wrong. Far cry 2 is probably the last mildly risky game Ubisoft ever produced and was way ahead of its time in a lot of aspects.
Yeach as far as climate goes it was great. The only unfortunate choice were the endlesly respawning guardpost (?) not sure about the name. But it was a massively ubfortunate point. It really made the game go from very good to throwing your controler in rage very fast.
Respectfully disagree. It’s the captured roadblocks that turn the late game of other far cry games boring. FC2 was constantly dangerous. Arriving at a mission start point was an adventure. You had the option to Leroy Jenkins into the roadblocks, beat a wide path around them, take the bus, or 30 other things in between.
That’s why the later games make unlocked bases into fast travel points, because once defeated, there is no point in revisiting anything.
You know what, when I played it I really hated these respawning roadblocks because I thought they were immersion breaking and “annoying”, but thinking about it, most of my better memories about random gunfights were around these roadblocks, so I agree with you, especially the late game thing.
You are not, it’s just fanboys who have perverse need for allegiance for no other reason than to geek out over something that are not touching anything before their time. To me Fallout is the first two games, and perhaps New Vegas even though engine is dogshit.
Are you using the US or the Japanese numbering? US 2 was pretty good. Japanese 2 was still super early and closer to 1, so not very complex. I found that one to be fairly dull.
It falls into the style of RPG that is more like reading a book than having freedom to do whatever you want. Some people really like that story aspect.
Dunno about Yakuza but sounds fine for all but warcraft. World of ruined the franchise for me. I just wanted more of the same. Also I thought persona was part of megami tensei.
Warcraft 2 was actually a really great game. If Warcraft 3 and StarCraft never came out and utterly eclipsed it, it would have been an all timer. Warcraft 1 was also good, but inferior to 2 in basically every way and never got time to shine.
Witcher 1 was incredibly tough to play through, but Witcher 2 was great.
WC1 was iconic at the time and we thought nothing could top it. Then WC2 absolutely blew our minds, and SC destroyed them as (I think) the first popular RTS with highly asymmetric but balanced factions.
Blizzard was absolutely on the top of their game then.
Of course nobody (including myself) realized that both games were just Warhammer / 40k in disguise, because those games were only for true nerds at the time. Only in the last few years as 40k has become mainstream did it become obvious where Blizzard got the lore and aesthetic to create such iconic games.
Same I never played much WC3 we mostly stuck to StarCraft and AoE2 in that era. StarCraft for a quick weeknight game and AoE2 for prolonged LAN party wars
I heard (so feel free to go down the rabbit hole and try to varify it, cause I am struggling to find a definitive source) that Blizzard was actually trying to make a 40k game but the deal fell through so they went for legally distinct lore. And one of the reasons all the cerabrates were killed between brood war and wings of liberty was because games workshop didn’t feel they were legally distinct enough and blizzard didn’t want to get in a protracted legal battle over them.
I’ve heard that it was Warcraft that was supposed to be a Warhammer licensed game but I don’t believe it. I don’t know what the armies looked like at the time when Warcraft 1 was being designed, but the Humans certainly don’t look like anything in 5th Ed - TOW.
StarCraft is clearly inspired by WH40k, but it came out after they should have resolved any licensing issues with Warcraft.
I looked into it this morning because I was curious and it’s all very blurred lines. However apparently Blizzard and GW do have an agreement about allowed content going forward so something happened between them.
It’s like… There’s only so many ways to draw a space marine but Terran marines are clearly Space Marines, right? And the Zerg and Tyranids are just too similar for it to be a coincidence.
Add comment