caseofthematts @ caseofthematts @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

127

Joined

2 yr. ago

I'd love to hear why, personally. Wasn't a huge fan of Alan Wake 1, so the huge outcry for the sequel has been a bit odd for me, and would like to hear the other side of the coin.

I've just started Dragon Age: Origin. I've never played a Dragon Age game, I'm a couple hours in at this point. If anyone has any tips or advice, that's be appreciated! Playing a Rogue Elf. I'm enjoying the lore and the world so far.

Just picked it up on Switch based off the strength of Sea of Stars!

This seems like the obvious answer based off their history.

Thanks for the insight. I'll stick with the original, then.

Do any of the reviews mention anything about the UI? One of my issues while watching the first released videos and clips of this switch version was how boring and basic the UI was looking. Wondered if that was just a gripe on my end or if it effects some of the people to actutally play it. I understand it's a small complaint but it can really change how a game is for me.

It's why I've never felt the same ire as those who talk about Nintendo being generations behind. They generally make fun games that age well aesthetically, and I'll play those games often.

Yea, I wouldn't give them any money, though. The actual creators got fucked and any purchases of the game go to the people that fucked them. Great game, but I'd sail the seas for it.

I've been meaning to pick up Crystal Project (that price, wow!) But I learned it's coming to Switch so have held off on it. After Sea of Stars, I need me some new JRPGs!

Funny, I absolutely love Ys Origin and can't really stand the modern direction of the series. Been meaning to try the Trails games, but never knew where to start.

Now TF2 had some fun competitive matches. That takes me back.

I think you have a lot of good points here. One of the major issues is that Competetive esports meta bled into casual Overwatch.

Control was so good that, for me, it retroactively made Alan Wake better by their connections.

However, in my opinion, that didn't make Alan Wake good. It's a game that should have worked wonders for me, but the gameplay loop being the same from beginning to end (and truthfully, it being monotonous didn't help) and the controls being frustrating just made it a game I wanted to get through, rather than enjoy.

Unsure if I'm going to play Alan Wake 2, as it looks like the same gameplay that I didn't enjoy.

Finally beat Sea of Stars, and have gone back to play Megaman Battle Network Collection, starting with #1. Definitely not the best entry in the series, but it's got good bones. Looking forward to getting to #2.

I know a lot of people like them, but you just listed a lot of my least favourite Zelda games. Wind Waker (before the remake, I heard there were a lot of QoL changes that I had issue with from the original?), Phantom Hourglass and Skyward Sword. I would've beat my head against a desk if you said Spirit Tracks.

But people do enjoy these, so I hope you like them much more than I did.

You can go back on reddit and look. Calling it revisionist is a bit of a stretch. The temperature on this game was very much mid to uninterested. Sure there were people who were excited, but it wasn't a majority at all.

This cements two things for me. The first is that I hate the wording of things in 5e, especially it being called a Bonus Action. I think that specific phrase confuses people.

The second is that this is much easier in Pathfinder 2e. You can cast any spells as long as you have the actions for it using your 3 action turn. Cantrips are usually one action, and greater spells usually range from two to three actions. Simplifies this confusing mess quite easily.

It's really a shame, I loved their Sam & Max. Their Monkey Island was a lot of fun, as well.

No, what killed it was them taking on too many high profile licenses at the same time and trying to juggle high workload and high demand with short turn around. Pair that with the fact that they change and work on things between episode releases, too.

Think about it this way: what's the purpose of the players choosing between North and West if the outcome is exactly the same, whether they know this or not? Are they just arbitrarily choosing between the two paths, or do they have information that gives positives and negatives to either path? Doing the former is just a choice for the sake of it. It serves no purpose. In the latter, it's now less of something to fill and waste time, and it's now a decision on the players' part on whether they want to travel safely or dangerously, or whatever the differences are between the routes.

Quantum ogre is more about the intent and removing actual choice from players. Good prep does away with making player choice irrelevant.

I'm assuming in your question, the first situation would have the "preplanned" fight be wherever the players decide to go since we're discussing the QO. The difference between your two methods is in the latter, you're making up the creature or combat on the spot by reacting to what the players have done. In the first, it didn't matter what the players did. You were going to do it anyway, so why even give them a choice?