YI_Orange

So wait, do we still tell Dave when the site's down or should we tell Rorie?

I still like those games, but yeah, it's really starting to bug me. Don't block content, just let the relationships evolve differently based on how you interact with someone. If I think someone is a total dick I should be able to let them know I think they're a total dick without being punished for it. Interestingly enough, trying to think of games that do it closer to right, Binary Domain comes to mind.

It doesn't do it especially well or deeply, but there's times you're rolling with 2 squad mates that will have opposite reactions to a prompt. In those cases, you have to say something that someone doesn't want to hear, so it becomes easier to just pick what you feel instead of just trying to game the system(unless of course you're focusing on building one person and don't really care about building the other, but I still think this type of interaction is useful).

Of course, for their story and for things to make sense(without removing characters from the game), they want everyone to be super friends with the player avatar. I see why it's difficult to structure the interactions in a way to keep everything in tact but let you interact more naturally.

I think the problem actually lies in the way the supporting cast is built though. Most of the time(there are a few exceptions) the characters just want you to be super nice to them or say exactly what they want to hear regardless of you established your character with them, or others, previously. They should stop going so far into blank slate and more have a few loose-ish personality types that the player can play into. Then build the side characters in a way that each of these types can get along with the player avatar, maybe not in the same way, but in a way that makes sense. People have relationships that don't hinge on just saying what everyone wants to hear.

I realize that might be entirely unrealistic, but as it is now it doesn't feel like characters have real relationships with player avatars, it's just grinding friendship points.

I did not answer the question in the thread, but I just wanted to discuss Brode's point a bit since it is something that is beginning to bug me yet I love those type of games.

It's a cop out to just quote someone, but I'm not thinking great and this guy worded my thoughts better than I would have right now. I look forward to your next appearance Dave!

Depends. In games like Starcraft 2 I like them because they give me reasons to go back and play missions again and add a little extra challenge and some fun stuff to work for. In other games like Dead Space where you have "kill X enemies with X weapon" I think they're pointless. All those do is nag at the completionist in me and detract some from the experience whether or not I actually do them.

I guess to actually answer your question. No I do not care about them, but sometimes a part of me does. However, I like that they exist because when done right they can be fun.

@poisonjam7: for SMT, depends what you're going for. Nocturne is awesome, but it's not incredibly story heavy. There's some dialogue dumps, but if I remember right the story is relatively heavily implied. Digital Devil Saga is also awesome, and is much more traditional in the way it tells the story. DDS' story is told over 2 games, and the ending is crazy and weird.

As for Lost Odyssey and Nier, if you like feeling sad then these are great games. Nier takes a bit to get going, but I absolutely love the final few hours. You get more out of it if you do NG+(which starts you at the half way mark), but I just read the extra stuff and it's pretty great. Especially ending D. Lost Odyssey's core story is nothing amazing and the characters other than Jansen are largely forgettable. BUT, there's little stories for you to read peppered through the world that are easily the best part about the game. I never finished Lost Odyssey(I really should, I'm on disc 4), but I feel like they kind put the best stories up front.

@gamefreak9: You can't be serious

Dzhokar Tsarnaev was apparently a student at my college. Weird.

I have one question, and that's about balance. I wanna know how you feel about the current state of balance and the variety of heroes that see play time? I stopped playing League of Legends because people would just move down a check list of champions trying to get the most bullshit possible on their team. Not only did the relatively OP champions hurt the enjoyment, but every game started to look the same.

Anyone playing consistantly? I've been fighting an urge to give DotA 2 a shot since I got burned out on LoL(same 20 champs every match whoo!) I don't really wanna jump in without a group of people to play with though.

Steam: YI_Orange

Location: US East

Experience: Used to play plenty of DotA in WC3, but haven't for years. I played a good bit of LoL. I know my way aroud a MOBA so if people need some help with the general practices of the genre I can help with that, I have to relearn the hero interactions and items for DotA 2, though I'm sure I know basic build theories and such.

Favorite Hero: N/A. I haven't played DotA 2 yet. In the WC3 map I played pretty much everybody and was at least decent with most of them. That's how I like to play. If I join up with a group I'm not looking to get dropped into playing one role all the time or being locked out of a role. I don't care how good anyone is, I just want versatility.

@winternet: So Elizabeth can just do that just because she feels like it?

edit - And if it is just supposed to be symbolic, then what of the actual event? What actually happens?