Jump to content

InsideOutBoy

Members
  • Posts

    1,281
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by InsideOutBoy

  1. The Hadley's Hope scenes, although an interesting curio, are terrible additions to Aliens. They are the only time we leave Ripley's point of view for an extended period of time and leap across the galaxy. In the theatrical version we are locked to Ripley and experience the colony for the first time through misty, crackling monitors aboard the APC as she does. This adds a lot to the tension for we empathise with her feelings of fear, dread and perhaps even a tiny, desperate hope that everything could still be all right down there. It's almost a rule of horror that when the hero enters the dark, spooky mansion/cave/colony he doesn't know what terrible deeds unfolded there. The imagination must answer those questions. Games have adapted this technique with the use of audio logs such as in System Shock 2 that hint at what terrible things happened, but don't show it. The other additions to the Special Edition are fine, although the turrets - much as I love 'em for the chunky hardware in Aliens - they do mess with the pacing slightly. Aliens is paced perfectly without them.
  2. As a massive Aliens nerd, I'm more interested in the plot so if anybody can spoil exactly why... Ripley, Hicks and Bishop stalled the engine on the Sulaco over the planet, and how they ended up light years away for the start of Alien 3 That's be appreciated! I might play it, just as a rental, to explore the Aliens sets but the dialogue seems so fucking awful from the trailers that I can't even watch all of them, and the fact that Michael Biehn and Lance Henryhousen are in this, no doubt saying shit dialogue, is a bit depressing. I will give it to Randyfork, they can seemingly finish projects that no other developer can, even if the end result is apparently shit. There will be a good Aliens game one day... Just like there will be another great Alien movie... one day.
  3. Is the thinking that this film will spend most of its duration on Earth? Perhaps the trailers are just leading us to believe that. It would be odd for a Star Trek movie (except, of course, for the greatest Star Trek film ever made). That TV spot reminded me of the start of Mass Effect 3.
  4. Am I missing something here? What show are you talking about? (Sounds interesting). And on a different note, RLLMUK modern action movie favourite 'The Raid Redemption' is on Canadian Netflix now.
  5. Haha, well I'm sure you found that link useful then. It must have been an post you made that led me to them ages ago. Thanks for the uploads by the way, provided a fair few hours of nostalgic fun.
  6. This guy on Youtube has uploaded most/all the episodes of Bad Influence. The first ever episode has reviews of Streets of Rage 2 and Caveman Ninja.
  7. The house from episode 2 has to be a nod to the 1990 remake of Night of the Living Dead (if anybody's seen that):
  8. The Walking Dead features some of the best writing in a videogame and that is the heart of the matter. It even has a child character that isn’t annoying. If you want to play a well-written, intelligent zombie “movie” then you will like this game. This game is what I wanted from The Walking Dead television series. It is a faithful, decent use of the license although the actual plot contains few surprises. Most horror fans will have seen similar deeds. The originality comes from how the game mines deep into emotional, humane moments, still a rarity in videogame-land. The Walking Dead is another hopeful sprout of a time when we might play more games about people, life relationships – things that matter here and now, as opposed to a deluge of Hollywood plots. (The structure of The Walking Dead could be used to tell almost any tale.) The comic-book graphical style work wells and allows the animators to give the characters much needed facial expressions without worrying about the uncanny valley. But the game still has to tell you, via text, how certain people reacted at certain times. You’d never be able to guess person X ‘will remember that’ from their face alone. All of this is wrapped up in great camerawork. This is a point and click game where the camera is alive, always moving, showing your actions from the most cinematic angle without disorientating the player. It’s a call back to the pre-rendered Resident Evil games without the ball ache of having to shoot at an enemy off-screen. The programming is a somewhat different matter. The engine does stutter and crawl on occasion, often for no obvious reason. It almost stopped completely whilst climbing a ladder in episode 5. Despite comic book framing, there is a fine amount of realism to the events and settings. This game is low-key. It fights off the urge to be melodramatic or shocking, as so many other games fail to do. There are quiet moments when all you can hear is the rustling of the trees and the birds. Your character walks for 90% of the time. The game starts with a simple as a conversation in a moving car and is content to be slow, aware that we are adults who don't need to be jolted every 30 seconds and can work things out for ourselves. Gloriously, for a videogame, sometimes characters say nothing at all. Silence can speak volumes. I felt Episode 4, (coincidentally written by a Hollywood screenwriter) was the only one to get a little bit silly with some eye-rolling dialogue and events. Like a good TV series, I started looking who the writer was in the opening credits to see if I was in safe hands or not. Overall, the Walking Dead reminds me of Shenmue, and not just because of its numerous quick-time events. To fix a radio you have to twist all the knobs, pull up the aerial, and eventually change the batteries. You open drawers with nothing in them. Later on you have to open a door by removing the bolt and unscrewing six screws, one by one. Realism is rare in games. It sounds dull but I like all this. It helps sell the illusion of being in a real place where a modicum of real-world knowledge can help, as opposed to game logic ™. The meagre puzzles are never difficult to solve and increasingly become a distraction from the main storyline as the game progresses, for they have little impact on the story and seem to pad out time. They also make you the main doer and decider in the game, which is unrealistic, but the game tries to cover this up. It’s nice to see NPC’s at least trying to do something other than standing around idly waiting for you to ask them something. Special note must be made to the voice-acting cast and whoever directed them. The actors enhance the dialogue (sometimes it is slightly different to the subtitles) and do everything possible to bring their characters alive. The best puzzles involve trying to solve human relationships and the right thing to do – a fine gaming evolution. The rest of the gameplay, aside from moving around, involves scripted action scenes. These are a mixed bag. Some are exciting, heart-racing and upsetting (for the right reasons) with multiple outcomes (such as at the start of episode 2). Others are a matter of trial and error, with fiddly timing, and feel annoying. I liked the timer that forces you to make dialogue choices in a hurry, thereby replicating the feeling of saying the wrong thing in real-life, but this should come with an option to slow it down for those who read at a slower pace (add an invert option too please!). I found episode 2 to the peak of the series. The story was still fresh and seemed to have great potential ahead of it. The cast of characters were at their strongest and the illusion of choice was still intact. I still felt I might be able to make my own ending. The actual ending that does come is excellent, and brave, yet remains someone else’s ending. The game boldly advertises itself on the fact the storyline alters to your choices, but it doesn’t in a meaningful way. Although the game shows you how your choices rank up with the rest of the world at the end (a nice idea) it’s actually dull - because there wasn’t a right or wrong way to do things. As I believe, Telltale wanted each major choice to split the player base down the middle, 50/50. The downside of doing that is that it makes each choice semi-redundant. It’s impossible to be "wrong". The more you play, the more you realise The Walking Dead is just a good interactive zombie film where you tailor scenes to suit your own personality and preferences. You are merely the editor of the story, not its co-writer. There is more cause and effect in any Mass Effect game. On a philosophical level, perhaps that is the point. You have to make so many tough choices, often with negative outcomes, that choice ceases to matter to you. Survival and protecting loved ones become all that matters. As in life, all choices lead to the same outcome. In the early episodes, like a new survivor, you have naïve hope that one man can make a difference, but that isn’t the case. Such scripting makes for a slightly less satisfying game but a good story. The actual ending is perfection, ruined only by a post-credits sequence that acts as nothing more than a teaser for a potential sequel. It almost ruins the fantastic emotional power of the ending and I advise skipping it until the game means less to you. The Walking Dead is a zombie movie where you get to be the editor and it that regard it works. As an experiment in player choice and freedom, it fails. You can choose to get rid of that annoying character, or to say the good answer instead of the lame one, and having control over the character creates empathy, excelling film and literature - but you will obey the overall script or else. I do hope it is pioneering in how it creates gameplay out of human drama though, and recommend it anybody who just wants to experience a good, harrowing, mature storyline in a game.
  9. (Big long review ahoy! Note: I watched a 2D, normal frame-rate version and I’m an above-average Lord of the Rings fan) Peter Jackson has brought The Hobbit to the big screen admirably. Whether or not you care about that depends on how much you care about The Hobbit. The Hobbit isn’t the greatest novel in the world. Much of it feels like a notebook of ideas for LotR. Only so much can be done with a limited tale. Therefore The Hobbit movies will probably never be as good as The Lord of the Rings films simply because of their source material. But this movie can at least sit beside the originals without embarrassment, unlike the Phantom Menace. Perhaps The Hobbit trilogy’s chance to excel will come in part 3 when the film (presumably) breaks free of the book and creates something new. I first encountered The Hobbit when it was read to my class at Junior School at the end of term (my teacher never finished it, the cow). The Hobbit, although a short book, feels genuinely epic when you’re a nine year old and this film recreates that childlike slow-absorption into a fantasy world. The slow pace is, for better or worse, part of the deal when you buy a ticket for such a movie. A lot of the appeal of The Lord of the Rings (the book and the films) is the world. Geeks want to spend time in Middle Earth. If you like escaping into fantasy worlds, there aren’t a lot of alternatives in cinema-land (unlike videogames), and Jackson’s presentation of such a world continues to be among the best. This is how reading the books feel. The pacing at the start did bother me until I took a deep breath and accepted that this is merely the beginning of a trilogy. I found The Fellowship of the Ring dull at first too, but on subsequent viewings, when seen with the other films and treated as one long work, the slow, gentle start works and makes a pleasant contrast to the darkness ahead. The same seems to be happening here. As a single film, judged in isolation, complaints of its pace are valid enough. The Hobbit part 1 avoids the the darkness or violence to come for now (unless you're a hedgehog lover). It is more whimsical and comedic than The Lord of the Rings which fits with the source material, but felt jarring to me, raised on the more sombre LotR and dark and gritty fantasy such as Game of Thrones. I presume the sequels will get darker as The Hobbit trilogy slowly merges into The Fellowship of the Ring, which will be wonderful if done seamlessly. There was some nice foreshadowing of future evil and promise that this will all feel like one 6 part story at the end, which will require remarkable writing talent. To my surprise, I think The Hobbit justifies being a trilogy. Jackson is not attempting to film just The Hobbit, where one film would suffice - he seems to be attempting to make a LotR prequel series, merely using The Hobbit to get things going. There is some nice expansion of the story here, such as the Necromancer, which reminds one that Peter Jackson does spooky stuff so well. As prequels go, there is at least no dreaded Lucas syndrome here, aside from when several well-known characters show up in one scene and few overly-familiar aspects, such as Bilbo discovering the power of the ring in the exact same manner as Frodo (I will forgive that if it's in the book, I can't remember). The whimsical nature of the story is matched by the visual design of the movie, which comes across as a slightly more stylised, if cartoony, version of Middle Earth. Personally, I loved this, especially the lighting, which reminded me of fairy tales illustrations. Even though I’ve seen about every variation on a fantasy kingdom you can come up with, the set design did still interest me. The goblin city particularly stood out, and struck me as being a Del Toro invention, given how over chaotic and kooky it was. What holds this film back from being in the same league as LotR is that it doesn’t innovate. There is almost nothing new here at all, aside from the lighter tone. There is little to capture alienated newcomers or truly excite LotR fans, aside fleeting moments such as the stone giants (which seem to be another Del Toro-inspired element). We’ve seen it all before. We’ve seen slow-mo battle scenes, heard Howard Shore’s melodies, New Zealand and seen Jackson ramp up the emotional melodrama. Everything is familiar. Therefore the film has a diminished sense of wonder and awe – a big deal for a fantasy story. Part of the greatness of The Lord of the Rings at the time was how new it felt. Never before had a fantasy world been put on screen so well. It changed the gaming/television/film imagination. Gollum was ground-breaking at the time. Now he feels like a walk-on cameo. A new director might’ve fixed this. The second biggest issue with the film bongs you on the head with its intentions, particularly when trying to find some kind of message. The LotR movies had their moments of cheesiness but the moral message of the LotR; of courage, mercy, sacrifice and the value of the underdog was beautifully-addressed, so The Hobbit feels the need to come up with its own message – but it doesn’t have one. There is nothing to say. The moral heart of the LotR – the corruption of the ring– isn’t around to rely on. But Jackson is sticking to the formula and has to find something meaningful for his characters to say. Hence Gandalf, and other characters to a lesser extent, become annoying walking fortune-cookies, stating their views with the subtly of an 80’s cartoon. Likewise: you-will-accept-Thorim-as-a-hero or else! Thorim, the boss dwarf, is not Aragorn yet seems burdened with having to echo him and the film labours the point that he is a hero, pulling out all the glamorous shots and rousing music, when the character is a watered-down retread of Aragorn (as a rule I didn’t like the Dwarves that tried to replicate humans). The action scenes are ridiculous in places, in a theme park manner, but easy to comprehend. However there is little sense of peril. Everybody is going survive and you know it, hence you enjoy the action scenes, but rarely feel emotionally invested in them. The fighting is played for laughs and the villains seem tame. The heroes get out of trouble often in the most predictable of ways. Enemies range from being outright comedic to bland CGI monsters with little personality (although it was nice to see the white alien from Prometheus get another role as lead villain). The ending felt like one chase too many. Acting-wise, there is little to comment upon. There wasn’t any of the shocking yet superb casting of LotR among the new faces. Ian Holm out-shone Martin Freeman a fraction of the screen time, making me wish he had been young enough for the full role. But people did their jobs and that is about all you can expect. Ultimately, this is The Hobbit, done in the safe and sturdy hands of The Lord of the Rings director, in the mood to replicate not innovate. Not a classic, but a pleasing fantasy romp regardless, aimed more at kids than LotR was.
  10. I wasn't claiming to be writing an definitive review. They were my first impressions based on about 2 hours worth of gameplay, though to be fair, I've spent about 4 hours at it if you include re-doing it in co-op and replying the first 2 levels over on all the different difficulty settings to see if that made improved matters. (It didn't: the harder it was, the more of a slog the combat felt, the easier it was, the more mindless it became). I'll stick at it if these "original moments" are coming up, (or ideally, if the level design improves which is the main weakness so far). I'll adjust my opinion if the game gets good.
  11. The single-player in this is a huge disappointment. I don’t even think I can be bothered to finish it and that pains me as I’m a huge fan of the series (I bought another Xbox just for this). I probably will wade through it for completion’s sake but it’s a slog so far (I’m just up to the point where the new alien robot race shows up). (So far) the campaign feels so creatively-stifled that when completing each area I give a little sigh of relief at it being over followed by a groan at seeing another space full of bland aliens who must die for reasons I can’t quite understand. The 10 year old Halo gunplay is still there but the level design and story are weak. Those elements can’t be cloned as easily. Halo 4 feels like a fan-mod for a popular game (I suppose it is, in a sense). 343 build spaces and dot enemies around them but that doesn’t build a decent game. There doesn’t seem to be the comforting hand pouring creativity and attention into each area. In the previous games each area was a new level had its own unique challenges and novelties. The merge between combat and level design ranged from good to perfect. There’s no loving design direction in this one, and the lack of ambition or risk-taking in 4 does matter when you’re on the 5th game in a series in a game that prides itself on spectacle. The best moments so far have been pinched from previous titles in the series but nostalgia is wearing off. I’m considering whacking down the difficulty just to get through it and I’d consider that heresy in the past for a Halo game. The writing is the worst. I speak as someone who used to be so into Halo that he read a couple of the novels. Cortana yelling at me to use the next magical dongle all the time grates on my nerves and the dialogue is laughable in places. I wish I could switch her off. The Master Chief's story has been told. That's why Bungie retired him. The graphics are nice but almost get in the way. I like simplicity and plainness in a shooter. Even co-op doesn’t seem to spice things up yet. At least multiplayer is growing on me though. It’s not Halo and it’s not COD. It’s something in-between and is fun in its own way. Reach still has a sizeable population playing multiplayer so I can still put that on if I want to play a pure Halo game. I’m going to persevere but if this wasn’t Halo with mega-budget graphics I’d have traded it in a few hours in. Halo 4 feels like a cut-down budget Halo to play (the original intent for ODST) but with a huge budget thrown at it.
  12. It's the least erotic film ever made, but bewitching, thought-provoking and worth watching if you want to be challenged. With absolute power, you can indeed indulge all your fantasies, and what horror that would be. It's considered a great film because, aside from how well it is made, it is an intelligent investigation of a topic. It is not gratuitous or out to score cheap thrills/disgust. Almost everything that happens in it can be found out on there on the internet, occurring for real. The film makes us stare at these images. The novel (which was written in 1785), 120 Days of Sodom, is far more extreme than the film, to the point of silliness (buggering amputee children) but because it's so mad and darkly absurd (and far too long) it's less shocking than the film. Salo is always linked with the Night Porter in my mind. They both deal with similar things and are both as good as each other, in my view.
  13. I like how the businessman in that Epson ad seems to be sweating with fear, as if he's just deleted all his files by accident. Anyway, I was late getting into the world of PC's and didn't get one until 1996 when I blew all the savings my Dad had been stowing for me since the 80's on a shit computer from Time Computers, who, for some reason, seem to be in business still. It was a piece of crap machine although I didn't know it, with 2MB built-in graphics, a Cyrix processor and 16MB RAM. It crashed when installing Windows 95 and left me staring at DOS afterwards, shitting myself, thinking I had somehow broken my brand new computer. Rather than send it back and wait 28 days for some spong to look at it and charge me, I found a geeky friend to install Windows for me off his own disks. About a month later I had figured out how to get the sound working too. I enjoyed a Christmas of C&C Red Alert though which made up for everything. Buying a PC was so exciting, giant boxes and that smell of clean plastic... Like getting 3 consoles in 1 package but the fear of it breaking was immense. It's still the most expensive thing I've bought after my car.
  14. Wow, this game looks amazing. I had no interest in it until I saw the Afterburner video someone posted earlier. I don't normally play such games but this looks like it will have a lot of depth for adult gamers, a real successor to stuff like Diddy Kong Racing (the only karting game I was obsessed with for a while). Can't wait.
  15. Why is this thread still on the front page? Serious question.
  16. *SPOILERS* I enjoyed the film after a weak start because it seemed to get crazier as it went on. My best verdict of the film is if I think of it as Bond’s nightmare. You can imagine the stuff Bond dreams of at night. I expected too Daniel Craig to wake up at the end. I thought this when the tube train crashes through the ceiling and the complete absence of realism or impact in that scene that made me realise the film is quite surreal. I also expected Keanu Reeves to come running by seeking Dennis Hopper. Bond chasing after M, across a field, never seeming able to catch up with her, is typical nightmare stuff, as is going back to his family home, as is running off with his Mum aka M, which is very odd. Skyfall reminded me of the Olympic opening ceremony, gorgeous to look at, slightly rambling and all about the old historical nature of England coming to terms with its past and embracing its modern, quirky identity. It also reminded me of the Batman movies in that it made me love Bond and then didn’t use him. Like a lot of Bond films, it has dodgy parts and seems like it was written to a formula. Goldeneye and Casino Royale work because they have focus, a rare thing in Bond movies (although both teeter on the edge of unravelling and becoming boring). This at least, was an interesting Bond film, as I expected from Mendes. He likes to take stereotypes and probe underneath them but he did well even if his approach to action direction is to nail the camera down and play with the lighting, which works, although it felt like he was making a statement against shaky-cam. Best Acting: The villain entering although it was basically an audition tape. He reminded me of Walken in True Romance. You get these in films occasionally: random wonderful acting. Funniest Bit: The villain turning up in a helicopter. Best stunt: Hard to say actually. The action was the weakest part although nicely filmed. The fight against the assassin was gorgeous to look at although I wondered if the title sequence had started up again by accident. Perhaps the motorbikes on the rooftops because it actually looked dangerous as opposed to ridiculous/stylish. It reminded me of the programme Kick Start, which is appropriate, because this was quite a nostalgic Bond. Special Prize: Best Bond girl (Shanghai) in a Bond film a while, perhaps since Natalia from Goldeneye, but she only counts because the fucking game made me develop a sadomasochistic relationship towards her. Like all superheroes, Bond is doomed never to have the perfect film, and that’s why we’ll keep coming back time after time.
  17. (Not sure if this was the original poster's intention, but let's get wistful...) Dead cinemas depress me because they were buildings of such wonder and excitement as a child. This was my local cinema as a boy: Not sure what year this pic was taken but I queued around that corner where the two cool dudes are leaning for many a picture. Here's another pic from about 3-4 decades later, showing people queuing up for the first ever movie I remember seeing at the cinema (Roger Rabbit). It was a Cannon cinema. Apparently they're rare. That's the sort of queue I'm talking about. The doors opening was a big deal. You best run over to the cheap sweet shop and get your goodies first. It closed down in 2002. I don't know why. It briefly became a Bingo hall, as if that weren't bad enough, it was at least the same building... I look it up now and it is this: Sometimes I still dream about that place. I'm inside it, the stairs, the carpets, the old pillars and velvet seats. it a magical castle in my dreams, a crumbling one, but still a place that presses upon me.
  18. **Spoilers** I was a little disappointed in the film, which although it retained an independent, artistic spirit to its credit, failed to deliver anything substantial. It felt like an average Judge Dredd strip, the kind you'd happily read one week and then dispose of - not the kind that would make you fall in love with the character or be remembered as a classic. The music and direction was exceptional at building up... Making me sit on the edge of my seat for some kind of incredible action scene... A scene that never materialised. The best action scene in the movie is perhaps MaMa going mini-gun crazy but Dredd's solution to the problem - running away and being unhit, was lazy and unsurprising The action was perfunctory, included because it had to be because the comic is violent. Karl Urban tries hard, but he is not Dredd. The corrupt judges who turned up immediately felt more like Dredd in terms of size and presence, filling their uniforms, but their appearance felt rushed. No doubt corrupt Judges turn up in the comics but Judges are zealots and this distracted from that point, not to mention Dredd taking down a Judge would be a major point in the comics, and it was a fleeting moment here. The director seems to have made the film to put in the gorgeous slow-mo scenes, which are fascinating, but belong to a music video rather than a movie. Avon Barksdale in the movie is distracting, but I can't blame them for that. The film feels like a long fan-made Youtube project, which is fine, in its own context, but on the big screen higher demands exist. Dredd captivated a generation of British kids because it woke them up to a far scarier world. This film hinted that, but the talent wasn't there to bring out the goodness of Dredd. Not that I can complain too much, for film as media seems disabled at portraying comic book characters. Even the Batman movies, arguably the closest yet, fail to exceed the comics. On the good side, the soundtrack is perfect, in certain scenes (the cherished slo-mo ones) it looks like the comic book brought to life in terms of lighting and staging. The low budget is used perfectly. MaMa is fantastic from start to finish, the most captivating character in the movie, Anderson does well despite being the pretty psychic sidekick, not a role many actresses could carry off, the Mega-City One feel is there, which is impressive, for capturing the essence of Mega City is half the battle. I think they were brave and wise to show the start of Mega City 1, something which isn't in the comics as far as I'm aware. There are moments when Dredd seems to live up to his reputation but he ultimately feels like a side character in his own movie. In fulfilment world, I think Dredd would be suited to a TV series, and this film could be edited down to an excellent 1 hour pilot. The day in the life of a Judge is a great concept. I'm mostly disappointed that they managed to get Dredd out the comic and put him on big screen, but they couldn't harness the power and do anything notable with it. I admire them for not making any basic movie mistakes, as a big budget Hollywood movie would've done, but this isn't what Dredd ultimately deserves.
  19. Thanks for letting me know. It's been a while since I've been to the Canada version but I see they have: TinTin, Salt, Hugo and Mission Impossible 4 added.
  20. Do the people who hate this movie hate it more than Alien Resurrection? I'm a huge Alien fan who loved Proemtheus. I need to know this.
  21. Indeed, as a huge point n click fan once upon a time, I struggled to get back into the genre in recent times. There is always a gorgeous sweet spot in point n click games, when the next objective is obvious and compelling, and you are always on the cusp of knowing what to do next, often with multiple unexplored routes should you find the puzzle too frustrating. But sooner or later you run out of places to look around, people to talk to, and side-puzzles to solve, and it's back to dealing with the puzzle that seems baffling, with only an unsatisfying selection of looking at an in-game hint system (in modern games, or in FAQs for older games). Point n click games were beloved once upon a time, I think, because they were (and perhaps still are) at the forefront of game writing and characterisation. The puzzle solving was merely distraction, a way to get into the setting, like the choices in a Fighting Fantasy novel. Think back to your favourite point n click games. I suspect most people remember the setting first, the jokes, the characters, the charming atmosphere but that few remember the actual puzzles - the actual gameplay. It was not 3D that killed the genre but modern RPGs. Final Fantasy VII probably ended my interest in the genre, for it had the gripping story and characters (for its time and my age) and instead of pixel hunting, all I had to do was level up and use menus to kill enemies. RPGs often have the story, the slow, relaxing pace but have replaced the obscure puzzling with more immediate and satisfying moral choices and/or combat. Mass Effect is probably a modern version of the point and click game. What the genre needs to look at, rather than its art style or storyline is its core gameplay, the puzzles and the direct method by which player progresses through the game. Broken Sword 3, despite failing, at least tried to do this by introducing its stealth, QTE events. I often mention it, but Portal could be a guide towards how the modern point and click game should progress, as it is a compelling, artistic story-driven puzzle game that appeals to the logical mindset of the point n click gamer yet without all the tedious baggage. If solving a puzzle in Broken Sword 5 could be like completing a chamber in Portal, (obviously in terms of immediate experience, not literally) the genre would regain its vitality. It was once cutting edge.
  22. That Drokk soundtrack is on Spotify, in case anybody is interested. I was, but I didn't like it.
  23. This game has now been put on stand-by with me until the patch arrives and hopefully breathes some life into it again. My favourite class is the barbarian. I loved smashing things to bits with a huge 2-handed weapon. I could just about get away with it until Inferno. I would love to finish the game on Inferno and grind better gear but I'm forced into a slow, tedious defensive build or endure, repetitive, expensive instant death. It's like WoW all over again, but at least being a defensive warrior in WoW gave you the perks of popularity and instant queues. I didn't want to use the auction house in Diablo 3 but gave in, spent half my gold on gear, which managed to delay instant death for about 2 hours until Act 2. Annoyed, I levelled a Wizard to Act 2 Inferno, thinking a Wizard could maintain its offensive edge. They're better, I agree. I only had to give up about half the abilities I enjoyed to survive at the end, but being forced to take uninteresting abilities to stay alive reduced my enjoyment of the class by 50%. Playing a class should be fun and it is - up to level 60. Then you're forced to make your character less fun to progress. WoW worked like this, but the rewards were more plentiful and the social rewards made up for it. I hope the new patch (whenever it arrives) makes all playstyles viable in Inferno mode.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.