I get why Tam is passionate about it but I'm not sure it's realistic to suggest that being a jerk or being dismissive online is incompatible with being successful or creative. Bit of a weird rant.
I cannot wait to see if they get up to the bit with the Spirits. What a brutal DLC. It pushed my ability to the edge on Nightmare to the point where if Part 2 is any harder I'm not sure I'll be able to beat it. Still love Doom Eternal though.
Those thinking this game may be a bit overhyped aren't really wrong, but they're also missing context a bit. Remember this came out between Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith when original Star Wars fans were pretty damn annoyed with the direction of the franchise. Lots of people latched on to Kotor as the best thing to happen in Star Wars fiction since the original trilogy.
Certainly a debatable opinion if you were into the extended universe at the time, but I'd agree that it's better than anything George Lucas was doing.
This bit about context is pretty key. It's easy to forget (and maybe it wasn't the same everywhere) but for a long time Star Wars was a deeply uncool thing to be into due in large part to the prequels being god awful. This whole Marvel era has normalised liking nerdy shit quite a lot but in the early 2000s back then to get a big videogame following on from content based on the Dark Horse comics with covers like this using a D&D style ruleset? It was really exciting for the tragics.
As an aside and to illustrate there has always been good Star Wars and shitty Star Wars co-existing I just realised Jedi Outcast came out the same year as Attack of the Clones.
@meierthered: maybe I'm missing the joke but the property Cyberpunk 2077 is based on _is_ called Cyberpunk 2020. It's from 1990 when that seemed more like future times.
If anyone else like me wants to avoid the Cyberpunk chat until after they've had a chance to play it they stop talking about it at about the 1:14 mark.
This looks like a really neat game but I'm gonna be that guy and say it is kinda weird seeing the Baldur's Gate name on it. Nothing about the gameplay, tone or look of this game seem very Baldur's Gate to me. I recognise Baldur's Gate 2 (and NWN) has similar successors in Pathfinder Kingmaker and Pillars of Eternity but it is weird that out of those three games the one least like Baldur's Gate is Baldur's Gate III. If I was being a reductive dickhead I could say this seems like Divinity and Dungeons and Dragons. It's weird because I actually like what this game looks like, but the title of BG seems like a bad fit.
Squadrons has half of what you said it doesn't, at least. Depending on the ship you're in you can have front/back shield focus and incremental adjustment for weapons/shields/engines.
Definitely has more depth in the mechanics than given credit for here, I think.
Also - it was said that the 'defection' was a way to avoid playing empire/space nazis. They have missions later in the story where you're 100% space nazis blowing up 'good guy' stuff. A few things that were maybe missed/not quite there in that part of the chat.
Also a little bit sad to not hear much mention of multiplayer, given that seems to be their primary focus for this thing.
Yeah this. It was a bit frustrating to listen to a lot of that talk being factually inaccurate but it sounded like the chat did attempt to set them straight.
What is going on over at EA with the Star Wars games. That Battlefront spin off doesn't even sound good but it's fucking wild how badly they've made use of it. They've made one good game and that was done by a studio that hasn't been part of EA long enough for the rot to set in.
Hayt's comments