bushpusherr's forum posts

#1 Posted by bushpusherr (769 posts) -

@ghostiet: Based on my past experiences with other Divinity games I have the absolute right to say I am not confident in how good it is. I didn't like the other Divinity games and I probably wouldn't like that one. On top of that, I don't want to shovel out 50+$ for a game that I may or may not like and that doesn't appeal to me and what my sense of a good RPG is, e.g. Dragon Age: Origins, Skyrim, Oblivion.

I don't think anyone is saying that you don't have the right, but it is a bit silly. First off, the game is $40, not on sale. And all you have to do is look at the game's critical reception compared to the rest of the Divinity franchise to see that most people agree with you...they haven't had a super strong past with these games. Most agree that this one has risen considerably above. You specifically site Dragon Age: Origins as an RPG that appeals to you...I'd be curious as to what about Original Sin specifically has steered you the other way. They share a good deal of similarities, at least as far as the gameplay is concerned.

#2 Posted by bushpusherr (769 posts) -

@dagas said:

It's like people playing Diablo on hardcore with permadeath. I don't get it. I would loose it if I lost a character forever after having spent a lot of time on that.

I have nothing against games being hard, I enjoyed the Halo games on Legendary and the Mass Effect games on Insane, but permadeath is something I can never understand why you would want. Being able to try again from a checkpoint is what makes it fun because you can just try another strategy if one fails otherwise you need to play super concervative to never risk anything.

Some people might play Diablo that way, but I don't think that's really a valid comparison for modern rogue-likes in any way. Diablo 3 is a long game, with a ton of investment in a particular character, and you're going to fight through the same acts, the same bosses, and a lot of the same/similar encounters every time you play it. A game like Spelunky can be beaten in a couple of minutes, the investment on any particular run isn't even in the same ballpark.

The investment you make is in the game mechanics, and how to use the randomly generated items/content to your advantage. When your character survival timeline (even for super successful runs) are measured in minutes, not hours or days, then the penalty for dying and starting over is negligible.

#3 Posted by bushpusherr (769 posts) -

I think the thread should be renamed "Rampant Hyperbole." Maybe this is cathartic for some of you, I don't know, but this whole thread just seems like a poisonous well of negativity.

#4 Posted by bushpusherr (769 posts) -

Any particular detail that has people convinced that this is actually a show for today, and not just them recording something today that will be shown later?

#5 Edited by bushpusherr (769 posts) -

I love all the Souls games. Super excited for this. Really dig the style of what they are showing so far, I just hope it isn't totally singular. The variety of environments really stood out to me in the previous games. Hopefully they can do it again with a consistent level of quality!

#6 Posted by bushpusherr (769 posts) -

Not since speculating about the possibility of Brad playing through Demon's Souls have I been this excited about a hypothetical feature idea. Metal Gear Scanlon would be fucking awesome.

#7 Posted by bushpusherr (769 posts) -

@ichthy said:

Died randomly with no enemies? Are you sure you weren't telefragged by those teleporting guys?

This is the most likely explanation. Even if you don't interact with them directly, if they take damage from an arrow trap or something they can teleport right on top of you and instakill.

#8 Posted by bushpusherr (769 posts) -

Super fucking excited for this

#9 Posted by bushpusherr (769 posts) -

@wienerless_steve: If hires are rare, each individual hiring decision radically affects the potential diversity of staff... so... One would hope that it diversity would be given appropriately significant consideration?

Again, I have no problem with the hires. I love Dan Ryckert. Just hoping for words to become actions.

But who is to say that it wasn't given the appropriately significant consideration, and it still turned out that Dan and Jason were what they thought would be the best fit regardless? I mean, it's not like they should have cut every white dude from the hiring pool before they even started, right?

#10 Posted by bushpusherr (769 posts) -

No one said they shouldn't have been hired. We were just hoping that other kinds of people had been hired. Those two ideas can be separate.

Just as a general logical consistency...you can't say "I wish other people would have been hired" without implicitly saying "I wish these two guys wouldn't have been hired in favor of those other people". The only way those ideas can be separate is if there were more than 2 positions open, which I think everyone can agree would have been better if there were more.