ll_Exile_ll's forum posts

#1 Posted by ll_Exile_ll (1972 posts) -

I vastly preferred Transistor. Perhaps it was because I played Bastion well after the fact and, after hearing all the raving (especially from the GB guys), I didn't think it nearly lived up to its reputation. Still, I love Transistor's atmosphere, the combat had tons of depth and options, and that music, so good.

#2 Posted by ll_Exile_ll (1972 posts) -

The idea of self censorship is a fallacy. If it truly is the decision of the creator to alter their own work (even if it's done to avoid backlash or cave in to social pressure), it isn't censorship. Censorship is forced alteration by an outside force (usually a government).

If a creator chooses to alter their own work to avoid bad publicity or controversy, it's no more censorship then when you may choose to avoid using foul language in front of your grandmother. It may not be what they truly desire for their creation, but if they really wanted to they could stick with their original vision and ride out any backlash that may arise. In cases of true censorship that option is not avaiable.

Self censorship is an oxymoron. The idea behind it certainly exists, but calling it censorship is disingenuous. Censorship is about being forced to alter one's work, so the idea of choosing to do so is the complete opposite of censorship, it's simply creative decision making.

As to whether it's "right or wrong," that's not really a discussion worth having. Every case is different, but they all share the fact that it is the choice of the creator, and a creator can do whatever the hell they want with their own creation. You don't have to agree with their decision, but unlike true instances of censorship the decision lies solely with the creator (which is also why your cartoon examples don't even fit the idea of self censorship).

#3 Posted by ll_Exile_ll (1972 posts) -

Chrono Cross is a great game, it's just a bad sequel. It's not Chrono Trigger 2, so if you go in knowing that and don't expect a true sequel you'll likely enjoy it. It has a fantastic battle system, incredible music, and a pretty good story. It doesn't have the memorable cast of characters that Trigger has, largely because there are somewhere around 5 times as many potential party members, but there are some good characters mixed in there.

I really enjoyed Chrono Cross, I understand many people didn't because they were looking for Chrono Trigger 2, but I recommend giving it a shot anyway.

#4 Posted by ll_Exile_ll (1972 posts) -

I played through Demon's Souls and Dark Souls well after the initial wave of hype for each. My plan was for Dark Souls 2 to be my first day 1 Souls game, but in the time between the console release and the PC release (which I was waiting for), the public opinion on that game from hardcore Souls fans turned quite a corner so I decided to pass on it and hold off for Bloodborne.

Needless to say, I can't way to finally be part of the day 1 zeitgeist for one of these games when Bloodborne finally comes out.

#5 Edited by ll_Exile_ll (1972 posts) -

There are so many games one could list, but I'll name five per major console I think you should play.

Atari 2600:



Super NES:


Nintendo 64:

Playstation 2:



Xbox 360:

Playstation 3:


There you go. Many of these are super obvious, but that's sort of the point. If you're looking to experience "important" games from the medium's history, generally speaking the obvious games are the ones that fit the bill. Clearly I didn't list every game that someone might consider seminal with a limit of 5 per console (and leaving some consoles I don't feel strongly about and all handhelds), but I feel like I hit the major beats for each system.

I tried to limit it to either exclusives or games that are tied to the console in some way (Mass Effect, Bioshock, and RE4 were timed exclusives, Metal Gear and GTA were associated with PS2, KOTOR and Call of Duty were associated with Xbox), so some notable multiplaform games of this past generation were left out. I also kept it to one entry in a series per console (in each case the game I felt was the best), but you can assume I endorse the entire series.

#6 Posted by ll_Exile_ll (1972 posts) -

Vinny has written like two reviews in the history of the site, and the most recent one was like 5 years ago. All you people voting Vinny are dreaming.

I'd say it most likely doesn't get reviewed, but if anyone does it's Rorie. He has a history with the series has recently written a review (Dragon Age) that didn't really have any other reviewers on staff qualified to do so.

#7 Posted by ll_Exile_ll (1972 posts) -

Majora's Mask is one of the very few direct sequels in the entire Zelda series, taking place directly after the end of Ocarina of TIme. So yes, you should play OoT first.

#8 Posted by ll_Exile_ll (1972 posts) -

@fisk0 said:

Did they actually remaster anything about it though? Quake II always supported HD resolutions, and what little footage I've seen of the 360 port doesn't seem to have updated any textures, models or ui graphics.

I was going to say something about this, but eh. This is the first time that the full PC release has appeared on consoles anyway, so I guess it kinda counts.

@mlarrabee said:

Well, I'm off to GameStop's used section!

Careful! I bought my 360 copy of Quake 4 from a Gamestop and it did not include the secondary disc that has Quake II on it.

In any case, unless you really want to play this with a controller then Steam might be the best place to buy it.

That Eurogamer article in the OP mentions some minor improvements over the original version. The 360 verions has better lighting and colors, higher resolution dynamic light maps, the removal of hitching due to this version loading the entire world at once instead of streaming data mid level like the original version, and a new liquid shader and improved animations for water.

#9 Edited by ll_Exile_ll (1972 posts) -

@humanity said:

@quarters said:

I'm actually really psyched about the idea of it being about 5 hours...

Man between this guy and @corevi hoping there isn't any multiplayer I feel like we're heading into some very dark gaming future.

I can't tell if you're being serious or sarcastic, but I find the idea of game developers creating a game that fits the experience they are trying to offer a refreshing thing. I'd rather a game be a perfectly paced 6 hours than a 20 hour slog that's 12 hours too long like Alien Isolation or have development time and resources spent on tacked on multiplayer no one will play anyway. A game that is what it is and doesn't focus more on adding back of the box bullet point features that are completely out of place is generally a better game.

Now, who care say whether The Order is any good or if the purported length is a good fit for the game, we'll have to wait and see for that. However, knowing the hour count beforehand doesn't tell us if the game is too short, it all comes down to whether that hour count is enough time for the game to accomplish what it sets out to. The price certainly complicates things, but when you're talking critically about a game the price shouldn't matter at all if the game is quality.

A dark gaming future is one where every game has tacked on multiplayer and 15 hours of boring padding, not one where different games offer different experiences of different lengths and aren't ashamed to be as long or as short as they need to be for the ideal experience.

#10 Posted by ll_Exile_ll (1972 posts) -

@vrikk said:

Stop making multiple threads.

Brilliant. Nerco a five month old thread to tell the OP to stop making threads. This is really constructive feedback.