Cretaceous_Bob's forum posts

#1 Posted by Cretaceous_Bob (537 posts) -

I love Jensen, black & gold, and McCann's music, so fuck yes strap me in and let's go. They can do whatever they like with those things and I'd probably like it, but if they're going for similar gameplay (judging by the trailer, it seems so), the one thing I'd like to see is some sort of justification for using his blades other than "I'm a dick and I like to watch people bleed". I always played stealthily and killing as few people as possible, so I never used the blades. But then again, maybe that in itself is some sort of commentary on augmented humanity, to have entirely unnecessary high tech people slicers embedded in your arms at all times just because they'd look cool if you did use them.

#2 Edited by Cretaceous_Bob (537 posts) -

I can't help but feel like releasing re-done versions of DmC and DMC4 is testing the waters to see which game people would like to see a sequel of, which is why I've never bought DmC and never will, and will buy DMC4 for the third time.

#3 Posted by Cretaceous_Bob (537 posts) -

Mid, off, and safe lane all present different challenges which are not simply overcome by being a support or tank or whatever. There are supports that are terrible mid-lane, and there are supports that are terrible offlane. They're both supports; the "convoluted terminology" regarding the lanes is about a very important game mechanic and is not adding a layer of complexity simply for the sake of it.

It's not as complicated as it seems, either. Think of it this way: if you played one single map in a FPS for years, you'd have some very specific terms relating to different sections of the map and the unique problems you'll face there.

#4 Posted by Cretaceous_Bob (537 posts) -

I'm 26 and I have never had my hair cut by anyone as an adult. Best way of doing things.

#5 Posted by Cretaceous_Bob (537 posts) -

@kcin said:

Joystiq was the last bastion of positivity and level-headedness in games coverage. Its tone was kept so consistently even (with a touch of buoyancy) that it was impossible to tire of it. It didn't rely on humor, which is a very tough thing to implement in the world of games coverage as so few people employed in it are capable of consistently striking humor, nor did it rely too heavily on headiness in a way that made the site too top-heavy on each visit. It was just clean, trustworthy coverage, with pleasant opinion pieces.

I think the thing I liked most about Joystiq was how it didn't seem like it was trying too hard to grab me by the balls. Not everything in video games is worth writing about, and not everything worth writing about demands that it be heard by everyone. There is a sense of desperation and hyperbole seen elsewhere, in headlines and in article wordcounts, that I am just not always interested in engaging.

If the closing of Joystiq means anything to me, it's not that games coverage is dying in some way; it's that innocence in games coverage may be what is dying here. But given the last two years in the industry, who is really surprised? I'm just bummed I lost my pleasant little safe place to read nice things about what's going on today.

Yeah I agree with all of this. Joystiq was where I went after I couldn't possibly tolerate Kotaku anymore once they started blasting their front page with pictures of a mass shooter as fucking crass clickbait. If that's what I have to deal with to read about video games, then I don't give a fuck about video games. Joystiq was doing it right for a long time, so of course somebody couldn't let them keep doing that.

#6 Edited by Cretaceous_Bob (537 posts) -

Literally zero guys at Joystiq kept their jobs. Only one woman did. The company that owns the name Joystiq decided to keep using it for precisely your reaction right there, where you think just because something is called Joystiq it's the same thing as the website they just fired everybody from.

Edit: Also the word is "duped"

#7 Posted by Cretaceous_Bob (537 posts) -

What the fuck? Come on man. No, come on, world.

#8 Posted by Cretaceous_Bob (537 posts) -

That's how people decided to make games back then and that's what people wanted to play. Point and click adventure gameplay has always been sweaty dog balls to me. Quite frankly, though, I've got more games with solid gameplay than I can play, but I've never had enough games with the artistic merits of Tim Schafer's games. I thought the gameplay of Brutal Legend was pretty boring, but I consider the game a phenomenal work of art. I don't want to play Brutal Legend, but I love Brutal Legend.

#9 Posted by Cretaceous_Bob (537 posts) -
#10 Posted by Cretaceous_Bob (537 posts) -
@extomar said:

I don't know about that. Each of the "origins" had something happen immediately before you got the "main story/problem". To say that it is the same seems kind of odd.

I believe the issue is that DAO was geared as the first and introduction to the world while this game is not. You can't have the first "quest" in the first game have some crazy detailed thing where the player needs to start making "big choices" immediately. My memory of all of the "origins" where straight forward "something bad has happened, fix this now" with a later of "oh crap! dark spawns!!" while DAI throw the player into a situation that involves psuedo-politics and psuedo-religion tensions where the player may not know which way is what.

After my first 8 hours of DAO I thought it was pretty generic, had a lot of MMO stuff, and the characters weren't very interesting. The first 8 hours of DAO are not significantly better than those of DAI. I don't think any specific 8 hours of any RPG ever actually give you a good picture of the quality of the overall game. The end of DAO where you're saying goodbye to everybody would have been total crap without having spent the last 50 hours with them. RPGs are cumulative.