Aegeri's forum posts

  • 20 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Edited by Aegeri (109 posts) -

It's been pretty amazing seeing the gaming media (and pretty disappointing seeing GB do it) miss the entire point of why people hate the ending. It's a rushed, plot hole filled mess that doesn't take into account anything you did before and literally falls into an "ABC" choice, which Casey Hudson a few months before release said wouldn't be the way the game ended. Of course he might have confused choosing a color as being different to simply choosing ABC, who knows. Personally, I never felt that ME3 should have a happy ending: But it should have had an incredible one instead of the weak, obviously rushed and supremely lazy one in the game.

#2 Posted by Aegeri (109 posts) -

Really the statement in here that says it all is "Endings are the hardest part to write", which is why you don't let two of your writing team just whack out the ending by themselves in a room

#3 Posted by Aegeri (109 posts) -

I am pleased to see Bioware have listened to their fan base: ME3 deserved a better ending than what it got in the game. But I am curious as to the pheasibility of actually fixing the main problems with the ending. I doubt a retcon would be possible, so I am assuming this DLC will just explore or explain other aspects of the ending? Either way, I will be interested in what they do and it might get me interested in playing ME again. Unless they want to do a really good job on this though, I would far rather they just left it as it is instead of getting themselves into a completely unwinnable situation.

#4 Posted by Aegeri (109 posts) -

Personally, I would really like to see more coverage of iPad games here. I've been playing Kingdom Rush and it's really great fun - definitely a solid TD game if you are into that sort of thing. It would help find some of the better stuff among the crap as well. I wonder if developers will take advantage of the New iPads graphics though - most iPad games are not exactly... demanding graphics wise.

#5 Edited by Aegeri (109 posts) -

I wish I could find it, but there is a screenshot showing the soldier customization menu. You can change lots about them compared to the original - which was just the name. I think you can change gender, but you can definitely alter their hair, color, many facets of their appearance and their nationality (soldiers have a flag on their uniform indicating their country of origin).

I am going to spend so long doing that only to get them all melted by plasma. Firaxis are truly evil.

Edit: Presumably if you had what the various GI Joes looked like, you could copy them (roughly) and name your soldiers after them.

#6 Edited by Aegeri (109 posts) -

You have some major anger issues and your entire post reads like you have no maturity level whatsoever. If you can't have a reasonable discussion on video games on the internet where your opponent isn't even remotely insulting you in any manner, you need to stop posting.

#7 Edited by Aegeri (109 posts) -

@MordeaniisChaos said:

@Aegeri: Any assumption of how good that game is without having played it is fuckin null and void, and the only ACTUAL information we have is pretty promising. You're assuming so much it's laughable. They exist, there's no point bitching about it because they both exist and if their both of quality make and they both do well they will encourage similar games. Your dislike of the FPS genre at this point is meaningless in the grand scale of things, because plenty of people are more than happy to play a bunch of first person shooters.

Firstly, no it's actually not because there are more than enough indications of what the game would have been like if it was still on course to be released this month (have you seen the 22 minute developer playthrough for example?). Most importantly, that it won't be anything like the original it is "based" on. For example, there is no "perma death" of your allies on missions and they fall "unconscious" just like characters in ME do. It has no common lore, doesn't use the originals aliens and doesn't have anything to do with it gameplay wise. Actually, it looks very much like a poor mans mass effect, which is where I take issue with the game looking "promising". Do you honestly think if there isn't a big problem/backlash against the game and how utterly generic of a ME ripoff it is, that it would have been delayed again? It was completely redesigned from 2010, didn't do any better last year and has disappeared again this year. Of course, I hope that means they are adding more XCOM back into the game (so it won't just be XCOM in name only) - but that remains to be seen.

As for your last statement, given several prominent FPS games haven't sold so well over the last year (Bulletstorm for example), there is almost certainly an "FPS fatigue" setting in. Having lived through the 90s fad of RTS games, I am being distinctly reminded of what that felt like towards the end of that. As some interesting facts, the facebook page for XCOM had a whole 2000 "likes" and was mostly a warzone of fan bitching. Now it has around 100,000 likes and is filled with productive discussion about the turn based game. The official forums are essentially the same thing: Almost dead and now actually containing productive discussion - even if some of that is the great "TU" battle*. Sure this is only facebook/forums, but it's a pretty interesting indication of what got peoples goodwill in general and what didn't.

Anyone who thinks the FPS game was not being largely being ignored save for an aggressive fan backlash against it is kidding themselves. There is a reason it's gone back into redevelopment again, because all signs that 2k were getting is that its reception was not going to be positive. Unless you think they've delayed and redesigned the game three times now for their own amusement.

*For the record, I happen to like the changes they are making to the original games formula in XCOM a lot. Especially the implementation of the cover and suppressive fire mechanics.

#8 Posted by Aegeri (109 posts) -

@kycinematic said:

@Pibo47: About half way in the video theres some kinda mind-link type thing going on with the sectoids. Who knows maybe there's crazier psyonic stuff but they just weren't talking about it today?

Sectoids do have psionic effects. In this case they sort of "Mind Meld", which boosts their stats considerably. The cost for this is that if one dies, they all bite it apparently. Interesting mechanic, but psionics will certainly be a part of the game I feel.

#9 Posted by Aegeri (109 posts) -

@MordeaniisChaos said:


I don't really think the ruminations on fan fickleness at the beginning were germane or warranted. Fans of X-Com (which I am not) are fans because they're into tactical strategy games, not because the notion of fighting off an alien invasion is particularly novel. So when the FPS was presented as the X-Com game everyone's wanted all these years it's very understandable that they'd be pissed. For people to stop being pissed when they learned that this game exists isn't fickleness, it's changing opinion based on the new information that the X-Com tactical strategy franchise is not being abandoned. They feel like they were the victims of a bait-and-switch, only to have the bait returned in exactly the way it was offered.

It is but it isn't. I understand their position, but it's only fair to be sad not to get a real XCOM classic experience, not to shit talk what might be a great game for what it is.

There is nothing that indicates 2k Marins Bioshock Mass Effect FPS will be a great game at the moment (severely confused design and multiple reinventions of the entire game give considerable evidence of major developer problems). It's good at using all the standard chestnuts of modern FPS game design, but honestly from what has been shown even on its own merits it doesn't seem that great. The fact is, as an FPS it has to do something above and beyond for me to pick it up. I've not bought Rage, Modern Warfare 3, Battlefield 3, Syndicate or Darkness 2. Is there anything wrong with these FPS games? No. Absolutely nothing. They are all excellent FPS games. They are also FPS games - a genre that has been so overdone over the past few years I am sick of it. I've missed entirely excellent games solely because they are another FPS.

On the other hand, there is a distinct lack of deep tactical turn based games in XCOMs genre - especially on consoles like the 360/PS3. So when I'm thinking "What game will I purchase and use an increasingly limited amount of time on?" XCOM EU (this turn based game) is automatically it. It's something different from my game library full of FPS games, third person shooters and RPGs.

Really the entire point is if we needed yet another FPS, which looked entirely generic, was retooled to be another generic looking game (With chest high walls and glowing laser wielding aliens) and has disappeared into redevelopment again. Maybe if they do something genuinely special when they next show it (but I have my doubts) it could be worth it. But honestly, one wonders why on earth the FPS was EVER announced before the turn based game.

#10 Posted by Aegeri (109 posts) -

XBLA is clearly a nanny state.

  • 20 results
  • 1
  • 2