Jump to content

BadgerFarmer

Moderators
  • Posts

    3,620
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by BadgerFarmer

  1. 7 hours ago, Rex Grossman said:


    I’ve now looked up when I used the phrase ‘stupid cunt’ about a woman. In turns out it was in reference to a file name that had the person’s name ‘is a silly cunt’. So not actually anywhere near what it seemed like from your post. Thankfully.

     

     

    If it's any consolation, even an uncharitable reading would make your post one of the least misogynistic on that page.

  2. 1 hour ago, djbhammer said:

    It will make no difference. A game only  chat thread was derailed within mins of being created and has now been shut down. Not sure what the answer is tbh for anyone who wishes to just talk about the game itself.

    I think the answer is to just talk about the game itself, if that's what you want to do. Nobody's forced to engage with any aspect of a discussion they don't want to. I mean, half the conversation in this thread seems to be focused on what should be discussed in this thread, like some kind of ironic meta-derail, where you can't talk about the game because you're too busy talking about how you can't talk about the game.

     

    Personally, I feel it's impossible (and undesirable) to separate this game from the issues relating to Rowling surrounding it. I don't see any reason why there should be a 'safe space' thread for it, and as a mod I certainly don't want to have to enforce it. Just as those who are protesting the game are ultimately going to have to accept that some people here will be playing it, those playing it are going to have to accept the controversy, and with that the strong feelings that may keep popping up.

     

    I would say, however, that detailed discussions of trans issues relating to Rowling would probably be more at home in the trans thread in Off Topic, adding to the conversation that's already there rather than splitting it. But that's a matter of discretion.  

  3. Ghostwire Tokyo

     

    I was enjoying it for the first few hours. It's an intriguing scenario and a great setting to poke around in. The combat is decent too. But other than that, there's not much to do except a lot of open-world busywork. The combat doesn't evolve, and missions send you criss-crossing over the same areas with little of consequence occurring along the way. It's boring, basically.

  4. I was hoping this would be shit but good, but the combat trailer doesn't make it look much fun. It gives me the impression it'll be slow and erratic to control, with no real flow.

     

    Edit: On a second viewing, it looks fucking awful. Hard to believe those are the bits they actually chose to show in a trailer.

  5. 6 hours ago, Pob said:

     

    I couldn't disagree more with this. I'm 50 hours in, on the toughest skill level, currently alternating between The Crater and Muspelheim, and I'm using 90% of the moves I've unlocked regularly and with intent (admittedly I've not got into Draupnir yet). It did take many hours to learn all these moves and when to use them. For example, I never used the moves that charge your weapon up (hold or mash triangle) but now I've powered them I've realised how useful they are for applying Burn and Frost. Frosting up the axe while running and then doing that huge uppercut is a great combo starter / frost-dealer. And the flame whiplash moves are great for applying Burn at range and staggering enemies. I've also been swapping out runic attacks for different bosses - something I never did in the first game.

     

    As with most games, it needs to be very difficult to force the player to really explore their options and internalise the moveset. I started the game on the second hardest difficulty and it was pretty easy. I could hack my way through most encounters and fully ignore most abilities. I assume this is why the only option in From games is Very Hard - to force you to fully engage with the combat. In some fights I've had to use my full suite of runic, relic, buddy and rage attacks.

     

    In terms of different styles of play, I'd argue these definitely do emerge later on. I'm focused on applying status effects and then switching weapon to maximise damage by using the opposite element, and also realm shifting (slowing time). I love it when I find gear that help with that. I can see there are all sorts of builds that will presumably help in the various post-campaign challenges.

    I tried to anticipate this by using qualifying terms like 'for the most part' and 'for the majority'. I don't doubt that it becomes important in endgame challenges or higher level play. But you can still pretty much ignore most of it on standard difficulty, which is far from ideal.

  6. With the skill tree, I unlocked something when it was first introduced, then pretty much forgot it existed for the next eight hours or so. By the time I remembered, I had enough points to unlock everything that my axe/bow levels allowed.

     

    I don't think that's a good thing. A skill tree should have exciting stuff in it that you look forward to unlocking. Ideally, it should involve choices that push the character towards potentially different styles of play, rather than just a mass of stuff to bulk out a move set. 

     

    Really, the whole upgrade system (skills and weapons/armour) for the most part seems to exist purely to incentivise exploration. It's there mostly just because something needs to be there so you get a sense of achievement for looking around. For the great majority of the game, it's not intrinsic to the experience of combat and navigation.

  7. Good timing for the thread - I've been playing it this week and just finished it. Honestly, one reason I didn't get it before is that it looked offputtingly ugly, but once I started playing I grew to quite like the art style.

     

    Anyway, I enjoyed it. It's nice having these entire cases contained in just a few screens so it never feels overwhelming even when there are loads of clues to collect and connect. The solution screen format is very well done too on the whole, although there were definitely times it nudged me towards an answer that I wasn't going to get from the scene itself.

     

    I wouldn't say it had the brilliance of Obra Dinn, but it's neat and clever and fun. Well worth it if you're into investigation games.

  8. A big part of it is about technology and how it can both have an alienating and socialising effect on us. The sci-fi elements are central to that.

    It's also a heavily personal story inspired by life in the area itself along with extensive research into its history and geography.

  9. On 27/12/2022 at 14:37, BadgerFarmer said:

    I'm in a position where I played most of the stuff I wanted to as it came out, and have caught up on a handful of those I missed in the last few weeks.

     

    I've got Ghostwire Tokyo to start now, and I still want to get round to The Stanley Parable Deluxe, and Neon White.

     

    It would be nice to dive into an old-school RPG too - Live a Live, Chained Echoes or Tactics Ogre - but I doubt I'll have time.

     

    And then part of my also wants to try both Bayonetta 3 and Horizon Forbidden West, even though what I've seen and read of them has been a little uninspiring. But I really liked HZD and Bayo 1 is an all-time favourite.

    After listing all these games I wanted to get through, I went and bought The Case of the Golden Idol and Strange Horticulture instead.

     

    I've started Golden Idol and would definitely recommend it to anyone who enjoys detective games, especially Obra Dinn. It's not actually text-heavy at all, but a series of frozen crime scenes (hence the comparisons to Obra Dinn) that you click around looking for clues. Very easy to get into. 

  10. 2 hours ago, dumpster said:

    And the guy from the Edge article... Is it fair comment that he tried the game for 20 minutes, didn't like it and reviewed it as such? Should he be expected to carry on playing to completion when he's not enjoying it? Does his opinion only become valid during the end credits? Or was the fault with the publication who gave the game to the wrong reviewer?

     

    @SMD recently gathered a number of my contradictory posts about Breath of the Wild, showing how I alternately enjoyed and hated it for different reasons, ultimately spending way more time than I should have, desperately wanting to like it. Zelda games have never really clicked with me, so I'm the last person you should pass a review copy to.  But then again, pass it to a Zelda fanboy and you're guaranteeing a  10/10 review.  So as a publisher, who do you choose? 

    20 minutes on a game of that sort is obviously nowhere near enough to form an impression for a professional review. What can you offer a reader based on 20 minutes play? You don't necessarily have to see the credits, but you have to play enough to understand how the game develops as it progresses.

     

    There is a danger with the biggest releases in particular that they get grabbed for review by the big franchise/genre fans. And it's difficult because those people may also have the greatest expertise on the subject, and be in the best position to consider a new game in light of what's come previously. But I think we're fortunate these days in that there's often a good range of reviews available online for any given game, and a number of reviewers (although still a minority) who do a good job of balancing their enthusiasm with a critical eye. 

  11. For sheer number of games, you'd want a PS1, PS2, PS4, or Switch. There's a fair amount of older stuff re-released on the PS4 and Switch specifically (the Megadrive classics compilation, for example, or the MGS2/3/PW pack, or even SNES games with the Switch subscription, if that counts) to cover some of your retro needs, and the digital stores on both are packed with long-lasting roguelikes that previous generations lacked, plus countless intriguing indies, and ongoing games such as FFXIV and Destiny 2.

     

    I'd say Switch, because I've played more of the big PS4 games, and there's still more stuff to come (e.g. Zelda). I think unless your focus is fully on retro gaming, there's no reason to choose anything other than one of the most modern options.

  12. Yeah, the deckbuilding aspect is fairly light because each character has a separate deck and new cards are fed in gradually. Between battles you might switch a couple of cards around and upgrade one or two, but a lot of the tactical considerations still take place on the battlefield where you're often working with a combo of characters you haven't tried before and figuring out how they best complement each other on the spot. 

  13. Card Shark for unsung hero. It reviewed well enough, but I've not heard much about it since, and the thread on here is sadly short. It's a great game - original and superbly executed, with a pitch perfect art style and a smart script. It deserves to be placed alongside the likes of Pentiment, Citizen Sleeper and Norco in recalling a great year for writing in games.

  14. 1 hour ago, Scruff said:

    I received this for Christmas and it's very, very good. Been spending ages playing it and enjoying it enough to cast glances at the DLC. Is it really £40 for 4 characters and a couple of skins? If so, I can't justify paying that much (I imagine that Morbius plays like Blade, Deadpool like Wolvie and Venom like Spidey - Storm maybe like Iron Man?) if there isn't any commitment to additional story content or levels.

    Bit of a shame really as I'm loving what I've played so far.

    It says here that:

    Quote

     

    In addition to these heroes and their respective new abilities, each of the four DLC packs included in the Season Pass will introduce new story missions, a new upgrade for the Abbey, and a selection of new skins and outfits.

     

    What that actually means in terms of missions, though, is anyone's guess. New enemy types and mission objectives would be important, I think.

  15. I quite liked AC Valhalla, even though I didn't finish it. Because the story was divided into loosely connected chapters, each taking a few hours and culminating in an ending of sorts, it felt more like a series of smaller open worlds that you could hop out of when you'd had your fill. So I experienced all I wanted to over maybe 40 hours, then did just that.

  16. It comes down to whether the stuff you find when exploring is actually interesting to play with.

     

    Ghost of Tsushima fails on that point, I think - you've seen one fox, hot spring, bamboo thing, you've seen them all. The bandit camps and duels are effectively the same each time as well.

     

    In Elden Ring, though, each discovery is a piece of interesting level design, or a worthwhile encounter, or at least some weird shit you weren't expecting. Although it arguably still overstretches itself in the end, with stuff like minor Erdtree bosses becoming a chore.

     

    I had plenty of fun with the open world in Horizon Zero Dawn too, in that case because the combat systems and enemies were varied enough to play around with, and there was reward in simply experiencing the scenic views. Just going out into the world and dealing with its challenges in different ways was often sufficient for me to forget about achieving specific goals, which is always a good indicator with these things.

     

    Now I'm playing Ghostwire Tokyo, and it definitely suffers from open-world repetition, and the dreaded map full of icons. But apparently the main path only takes around 10 hours, which seems like a good compromise. The core loop is entertaining enough to sustain it for that long at least. Perhaps more open-world games should try that approach.

×
×
  • 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.