But my gamer cred!
Kovie's forum posts
If it makes you feel better about not seeing it, I'll say that I watched a pretty good amount of it and it really wasn't fantastic content. I'm patient and even obsessive at times with absorbing this kind of content, and I couldn't convince myself to do the whole thing.
Not that it was bad, just I don't think the return on investment is so hot on that one.
@bbalpert: Don't tell me that playing games you don't like isn't at all a new concept to gaming culture.
More reasonably, a lot of the time it happens to be an otherwise good game that just went downhill somewhere, and I'm obligated to see it through for one reason or another, maybe it picks back up later, even.
I usually try to restrict it in some way. You get into really hazy territory with older, not-at-all-forgiving-with-your-time games, where you need to decide between playing the game as intended, and having the luxury of sparing yourself potentially hours of tire-spinning that yields no inherent value. I think I'm usually inclined to save at the beginning of a stage, or somewhere equally defined if I care about what I'm playing (but am not buying into the needless time-consumption of old-school design), and if I just don't care or actively disapprove of the game, then I'm just savestating wherever out of spite.
@bigsocrates: Nobody said it was a good solution, but it's a pretty easy addition to help encourage the player. And obviously it's sometimes going to backfire, particularly when it's clashing against elements that aren't trying to drive you forward. Call that an oversight, most likely. I remember Alan Wake running into some especially bad disconnects between collectible searching and the actual game, where they would sometimes step on each other in a pretty ridiculous way. In fact, there was an email on the Bombcast about that exact topic once! Which I bring up for no real reason.
I think it's because if, in a game, you stop doing anything it quickly becomes apparently that the game wasn't, and usually can't be, designed to account for how you're playing it. Suddenly you as the actor have broken all expected pacing, narrative integrity, and the whole thing structurally falls apart. I guess you could think of it as the developers passive-aggressive will surfacing to ensure you're playing their game correctly.
The concept just makes me more interested in the games that actually are capable of contextualizing either entirely player-driven pacing, or alternatively: entirely game-driven pacing (think about how weird Dead Rising's clock is in relation). The weird middle ground you get with games focused on melded story telling gives cause for a pretty shaky reliance on the player to not make a mockery of everything, be it through their action or inaction. And you can also extend beyond styles of pacing and think more about general agency and context and stuff.
There was actually a developer commentary in Half-Life 2: Episode One where they talk about this, and they ended up removing all of Alyx's "hurry up" variation lines as a result, because players found them to be annoying. More developers should follow this trend.
This topic made me think of that as well. You can imagine how the tone and progression of the game would be changed, and in pretty much an unequivocally negative way.
Okay, so I don't know much about this game, but would LOVE to find it again. I played it a ton when I was young in the early 2000s. It was only for PC. The premise of the game was that you built up a castle and the surrounding land, and could build barracks or like a mage building and those would produce troops. The troops would then wander around without you being able to control them and would kill the various enemies in the land. You could put bounties on certain creatures to kill them quicker.
I remember it having like a map as its main page to get to different levels and I believe the game was dragon related. Dragon could have been in its name, but i forget.
The creatures you could fight ranged from giant rats that would come up from the sewers sometimes to flying dragons, to I forget what else.
I would be sooo happy if someone knew of this game. I know my description is not very good, so I'm banking on someone having played it. I don't know how popular it was. If you have any further questions, just ask
From the little I know about Majesty, it sounds like what you're talking about.
Planescape is a bit of an odd affair, it's downright fascinating with it's narrative and also the way it connects with how you play the game. For something as cliche as a plot revolving around amnesia is in the video game world, holy shit is it ever remarkably unsettling in Planescape. I've had a save of the game sitting around for quite a few months now, so I still haven't seen the thing through, and I can't say that I'm very much drawn to the CRPG genre, but I do think it's kind of an amazing game, of course qualified.
The combat is really a convoluted mess for no reason, and it confuses me dearly when you hit sections and all pacing is removed, where you're just reading dialogue for something like an hour, seemingly because the game is designed expecting the player to just skip most of the many available conversations and side-missions. On that note, it's really weird because it is a game where (to the best of my knowledge) you can just sort to play it a certain way and miss out on most of the notable stuff (stats, conversation choices, and other weird little things lead to narrative paths and intrigue), so that's kind of weird - I got the impression that it's built to facilitate missing interesting moments (and I guess the expectation that you'll be clamoring to replay it), instead of, you know, directing you at them or whatever.
I don't know, my perspective on the game is skewed in a lot of ways. I restarted it something like 5 times before I mustered the patience needed and felt okay with the first hour or so. It really does demand patience. It's also kind of fun to just make saves and experiment with how different situations can play out, I guess what that means is that your entertainment value will probably be dictated by how much you're willing to give the game.
For me the best moments of the game (so far) have just been learning more about the main character, which requires a certain diligence (and I guess it helps to have good non-combat stats?) to actually see a major portion of. There were some specific story moments that I really liked, but it'd be undermining to spoil them.
e: oh, also, become a wizard.
I was totally a wizard, and I completely regret the decision.
Well, since this thread has now been revived, I should probably mention that this problem with the site, in my experience, has long since been resolved.
Just in case someone found this through forum search or Google and expected it to still be relevant (I think it's the only topic about this.)