Kovie's forum posts

#1 Posted by Kovie (200 posts) -

@brkroger said:

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.

#2 Edited by Kovie (200 posts) -

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.

#3 Edited by Kovie (200 posts) -

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.)

#4 Edited by Kovie (200 posts) -

You know what's fun? Games that have cryptic conditions for achieving different endings. In the way that you might not even realize that there were variants, but discovering them is really mysterious and interesting. Like a Silent Hill, or even Dark Souls.

#5 Posted by Kovie (200 posts) -

@fredchuckdave: Quiet people are never unassuming or unpredictable, people are objects to be used, and also: statistics. Got it. Good stuff.

I'm not sure what would happen if I ran into someone who's less likely to talk than me. Maybe attempt to ask them stupid questions to get a sense of their personality? Or fail that and do pretty much nothing.

#6 Posted by Kovie (200 posts) -

Welcome! Patrick and Zoe's panel was really awesome, and I hope you'll help in counterbalancing the internet against jerks.

#7 Edited by Kovie (200 posts) -

@ssully said:

@oldirtybearon said:

Short answer: Kane & Lynch was a fan-fucking-tastic concept with rich, complex villain protagonists that allowed Io Interactive to sink their teeth into the kind of narratives the studio (if not just the creative leads) thoroughly enjoys; gritty, ugly, sometimes disturbing character studies.

Freedom Fighters was cool because it was Red Dawn as a video game. There was nothing all together memorable about it aside from that.

What you say is pretty true, but the thing that made Freedom Fighers cool was growing/commanding your squad, and the way your choice of attack(attack heliport, or raid ammo depot) actually changed the future missions. Not many games gave such tangible changes like that and many still don't. Sure the shooting kind of sucked and the AI was pretty awful, but it was really fun.

Regarding the modular and reactive design of Freedom Fighter missions; I can remember the original Kane & Lynch intending to have a system for hiring mercenaries who would help on missions. Obviously nothing of the sort exists in the released game, the squad system is still there, but you can imagine that there was an effort at some point to create a similarly dynamic element to the game with an economy of expendable mercenaries with their own levels of price, skill and presumably trust. But I'm going to assume the game had a lot more compromises in it's development than just that.

The sequel didn't go for it, or anything similar, either. So it's a pretty useless point. Maybe in the case of both games they invested more into their multiplayer execution than into a complex, systemic singleplayer that tried to invoke a broader feeling of what Freedom Fighters did successfully. As for why a sequel was made at all, it does seem like IO Interactive has a sort of fondness for the characters.

#8 Posted by Kovie (200 posts) -

What this topic makes me think of is Jeff Cork from Game Informer saying that he had previously broken about 3 Game Boys by smashing them into his knee in rage, and I can't help but think how goddamn painful that must be.

#9 Posted by Kovie (200 posts) -

This was a really neat feature.

$63.2 million.

#10 Edited by Kovie (200 posts) -

@village_guy: On one hand the exaggeration and total immediacy of it is hilarious, but it also exists to absolutely pierce through pretty much all other noise in what is typically a quiet game. What a way to let the player know things have just gone bad. I can understand being completely petrified by it just as much as I can bursting into laughter at it's sheer ridiculousness. It's really good.