523 replies to this topic

[Alias]

PC of course, I wouldn't touch a shooter on a console with a cattle prod.

[TehKiller]

Oy dont be dissing TimeSplitters

[Alias]

There are a couple of exceptions of course, such as Goldeneye, Perfect Dark or Timesplitters but most of them are reasonably old.

[SquigPie]

You see, for console, you can buy the Protector Trials DLC (challenge rooms) and the Minerva's Den DLC (Entirely new 2-4 hour campaign which ties up some of the loose ends of Bioshock 2). For PC, well, Protector Trial's came out some time ago (for free) and Minerva's Den is still underway...

[Ion Cannon!]

I haven't tried co-op yet, but having completed the singleplayer campaign I give portal 98/100. It loses 2 points for ending, though the worst thing about most valve games is they invariably end. My profile says I've been playing Portal 2 for 5 hours, but thats bugged, the campaign took me about 8-9 hours and every second of it is a joy.

98/100.

[Slye_Fox]

Portal 2

Single Player: 9/10
I really enjoyed the story and was really involved (so much so I missed allot of secrets >.<).
Only got stuck on 2 occasions, both due to doing a puzzle one way, when i should of done it another.

Co-Op: 10/10
This, was great fun; working with Odin (he did it with me) through all the different test zones was great fun.
....so was killing him a few times... on purpose ^u^
Yeah, we had a good laugh.

Total: 9.5/10

[-=ViCtOr=-]

Fallout New Vegas baby!
I really like this game.
I am playing the game now for the 3th time!.
I would give it a 9.2/10.0 if there were a lot less buggs and glitches.
now I give it a 8.0/10.0.
but still it's one of my favorite games.
PS: including Dead Money and Honest Hearts

Edited by -=ViCtOr=-, 26 May 2011 - 16:07.

[Ion Cannon!]

Been working my way through Baldurs Gate 2 and it's expansion for the past 5 weeks. It's the third time I've played through it but it remains nonetheless brilliant.

First off the amount of content, and the quality of it all. There are sidequests galore, some taking up to 3-4hrs each. Most of which are never as straightforward as they seem. And some of which are punishingly difficult. The game scales with your level, though some sidequests are nigh impossible at the lower levels, but you can begin them if you wish. BG2 gets the loot balance just about right, not overloading you with items but still giving you enough to make a difference. Of course the truly powerful items can be an affair to get in their own right. It just doesn't feel the same if powerful items are simply gifted to you, but neither are they overbearingly difficult or tedious, instead woven into the interesting and engaging quests.

Farming for XP or grinding? Doesn't exist, all the sidequests are more than enough for you to reach the upper levels by the end of the game.

What about the graphics, it's an 11 year old game though holds up suprisingly well. While it is not a graphicsfest the aesthetics are top notch and every area is lovingly detailed and packed to the seams with character.

The game is a complex affair, but thats just up my street. Fighters are you standard - wail on something till it dies, but the mages? I just love it, so many options, so many spells and so many ways to use them. If you know how to use a mage well you are almost unstoppable. However at the highest difficulty levels the AI does as well, and it will utilise everything you have and more against you.

In summary it is still in my opinion the best RPG ever made, and don't forget the best villain ever either!

99/100

[Alias]

Talk about coincidence. I just started another playthrough of BGII about a fortnight ago, but I haven't got terribly far due to a flood of uni work to do.

[SquigPie]

Ion Cannon!, on 14 Jul 2011, 15:51, said:

Been working my way through Baldurs Gate 2 and it's expansion for the past 5 weeks. It's the third time I've played through it but it remains nonetheless brilliant.

First off the amount of content, and the quality of it all. There are sidequests galore, some taking up to 3-4hrs each. Most of which are never as straightforward as they seem. And some of which are punishingly difficult. The game scales with your level, though some sidequests are nigh impossible at the lower levels, but you can begin them if you wish. BG2 gets the loot balance just about right, not overloading you with items but still giving you enough to make a difference. Of course the truly powerful items can be an affair to get in their own right. It just doesn't feel the same if powerful items are simply gifted to you, but neither are they overbearingly difficult or tedious, instead woven into the interesting and engaging quests.

Farming for XP or grinding? Doesn't exist, all the sidequests are more than enough for you to reach the upper levels by the end of the game.

What about the graphics, it's an 11 year old game though holds up suprisingly well. While it is not a graphicsfest the aesthetics are top notch and every area is lovingly detailed and packed to the seams with character.

The game is a complex affair, but thats just up my street. Fighters are you standard - wail on something till it dies, but the mages? I just love it, so many options, so many spells and so many ways to use them. If you know how to use a mage well you are almost unstoppable. However at the highest difficulty levels the AI does as well, and it will utilise everything you have and more against you.

In summary it is still in my opinion the best RPG ever made, and don't forget the best villain ever either!

99/100

Played Planescape: Torment yet?

Heard that one is better. Although for very different reasons.

[Alias]

I've played both, and I love them both.

Planescape Torment plays pretty bad compared to BGII, but the story in Planescape Torment is eons ahead of any RPG game before or ahead of it.

tl;dr: they're both great games and you need to play them both.

Edited by Alias, 14 July 2011 - 14:56.

[MR.Kim]

Fallout New Vegas: Old World Blues
8/10

I'm really pretty enjoy myself and it's more challenge than Dead Money. I mean, during sneaky kill some enemies, retrieve old technologies, and more kill cyber-dogs
It feels like more 1950's science fiction. There also some connection stories between this DLC and Dead Money.

[Alias]

The Witcher 2

While it is definitely the best PC RPG since Dragon Age, it felt to me like it was really missing something.
Compared to the first Witcher, I was quite underwhelmed. The length of the game felt really short (by PC RPG standards), I think it took me around 13 hours or so, drop that down to about 8-9 hours if you discount time I spent dying. Whereas, from what I remember, the first Witcher took me around 30 hours tops or around 25 hours sans dying, which is a pretty decent amount more. Taking into account Act 2 is pretty much completely separate paths and counting in the small amount of sidequests I didn't do that probably adds it up to around 15 hours total. It feels like the first Witcher had more time in sidequests than this has in the entire main plot line. Not to mention the Witcher 2 probably has the most anticlimactic ending there has ever been.

I think this is partly due to Dragon Age 2 syndrome, releasing something before it was ready. CD Projekt did develop their own engine (which mind you, looks absolutely beautiful) for this so it really could've done with an extra 6 months of development time in order to get the overall quality up of the plot and really flesh it out to fit five acts rather than three. Most of the changes to the gameplay did fix some of the really dodgy issues in the first Witcher, but it really pissed me off where you need to meditate to drink potions, which means if there's a surprise boss fight it sort of demands you do get to it, die, and then reload a save before the boss fight just so you can drink a damn swallow in order to live more than 10 seconds. It was definitely a hard game, which I guess in the current game climate is quite a good thing. Too many people are used to everything witnesses eternal death if their player character in so much sneezes in their direction. It did piss me off though that Geralt doesn't get any group control abilities (whereas in the first Witcher you at least get a weak version at the start) until about 12 levels in, which can be a real pain in the arse against swarms of even the most petty enemies.

Overall, it's a pretty solid RPG for the time it lasts, but it really needed and extended plot because it pretty much just ends and I felt like "wow, is that it?". It wasn't particularly satisfying as a whole, so I would recommend anyone who does want to play it to play the first Witcher first as it really is the superior game. By all means, play this afterwards, it's not a bad game by any measurement, but I don't think it filled the shoes that preceeded it.

7.5/10.
tl;dr: too short, do play it but only after playing the first Witcher

Edited by Alias, 28 July 2011 - 23:28.

[Ion Cannon!]

Alias, on 28 July 2011 - 23:27, said:

The Witcher 2

While it is definitely the best PC RPG since Dragon Age, it felt to me like it was really missing something.
Compared to the first Witcher, I was quite underwhelmed. The length of the game felt really short (by PC RPG standards), I think it took me around 13 hours or so, drop that down to about 8-9 hours if you discount time I spent dying. Whereas, from what I remember, the first Witcher took me around 30 hours tops or around 25 hours sans dying, which is a pretty decent amount more. Taking into account Act 2 is pretty much completely separate paths and counting in the small amount of sidequests I didn't do that probably adds it up to around 15 hours total. It feels like the first Witcher had more time in sidequests than this has in the entire main plot line. Not to mention the Witcher 2 probably has the most anticlimactic ending there has ever been.

I think this is partly due to Dragon Age 2 syndrome, releasing something before it was ready. CD Projekt did develop their own engine (which mind you, looks absolutely beautiful) for this so it really could've done with an extra 6 months of development time in order to get the overall quality up of the plot and really flesh it out to fit five acts rather than three. Most of the changes to the gameplay did fix some of the really dodgy issues in the first Witcher, but it really pissed me off where you need to meditate to drink potions, which means if there's a surprise boss fight it sort of demands you do get to it, die, and then reload a save before the boss fight just so you can drink a damn swallow in order to live more than 10 seconds. It was definitely a hard game, which I guess in the current game climate is quite a good thing. Too many people are used to everything witnesses eternal death if their player character in so much sneezes in their direction. It did piss me off though that Geralt doesn't get any group control abilities (whereas in the first Witcher you at least get a weak version at the start) until about 12 levels in, which can be a real pain in the arse against swarms of even the most petty enemies.

Overall, it's a pretty solid RPG for the time it lasts, but it really needed and extended plot because it pretty much just ends and I felt like "wow, is that it?". It wasn't particularly satisfying as a whole, so I would recommend anyone who does want to play it to play the first Witcher first as it really is the superior game. By all means, play this afterwards, it's not a bad game by any measurement, but I don't think it filled the shoes that preceeded it.

7.5/10.
tl;dr: too short, do play it but only after playing the first Witcher

Seriously I expected better of you, you can't skip all the side quests then complain its to short. I forget how long it took me but it was more than 25hrs. Either that or you didn't explore the world at all, or see what people had to say. I think the first act alone took me about 10hours. I do however agree on the ending, its all setup to be a great third act and it starts and then just ends.. I also wasn't a fan of the console friendly UI, but everything else about the game was wonderful. Oh and on the time to complete front, it may only have 18 samples but this gives a good average. http://howlongtobeat...ns%20of%20Kings - Plus you really ought to play through it again, what you do does have actual consequences, ACT2 is completely different depending on your choice.

Oh and I didn't actually see squiqpies post. Yes I've played PT, and yeah the story is better, but as a whole experience I prefer BG2.

[Alias]

Ion Cannon!, on 28 July 2011 - 23:42, said:

Alias, on 28 July 2011 - 23:27, said:

The Witcher 2

While it is definitely the best PC RPG since Dragon Age, it felt to me like it was really missing something.
Compared to the first Witcher, I was quite underwhelmed. The length of the game felt really short (by PC RPG standards), I think it took me around 13 hours or so, drop that down to about 8-9 hours if you discount time I spent dying. Whereas, from what I remember, the first Witcher took me around 30 hours tops or around 25 hours sans dying, which is a pretty decent amount more. Taking into account Act 2 is pretty much completely separate paths and counting in the small amount of sidequests I didn't do that probably adds it up to around 15 hours total. It feels like the first Witcher had more time in sidequests than this has in the entire main plot line. Not to mention the Witcher 2 probably has the most anticlimactic ending there has ever been.

I think this is partly due to Dragon Age 2 syndrome, releasing something before it was ready. CD Projekt did develop their own engine (which mind you, looks absolutely beautiful) for this so it really could've done with an extra 6 months of development time in order to get the overall quality up of the plot and really flesh it out to fit five acts rather than three. Most of the changes to the gameplay did fix some of the really dodgy issues in the first Witcher, but it really pissed me off where you need to meditate to drink potions, which means if there's a surprise boss fight it sort of demands you do get to it, die, and then reload a save before the boss fight just so you can drink a damn swallow in order to live more than 10 seconds. It was definitely a hard game, which I guess in the current game climate is quite a good thing. Too many people are used to everything witnesses eternal death if their player character in so much sneezes in their direction. It did piss me off though that Geralt doesn't get any group control abilities (whereas in the first Witcher you at least get a weak version at the start) until about 12 levels in, which can be a real pain in the arse against swarms of even the most petty enemies.

Overall, it's a pretty solid RPG for the time it lasts, but it really needed and extended plot because it pretty much just ends and I felt like "wow, is that it?". It wasn't particularly satisfying as a whole, so I would recommend anyone who does want to play it to play the first Witcher first as it really is the superior game. By all means, play this afterwards, it's not a bad game by any measurement, but I don't think it filled the shoes that preceeded it.

7.5/10.
tl;dr: too short, do play it but only after playing the first Witcher

Seriously I expected better of you, you can't skip all the side quests then complain its to short. I forget how long it took me but it was more than 25hrs. Either that or you didn't explore the world at all, or see what people had to say. I think the first act alone took me about 10hours. I do however agree on the ending, its all setup to be a great third act and it starts and then just ends.. I also wasn't a fan of the console friendly UI, but everything else about the game was wonderful. Oh and on the time to complete front, it may only have 18 samples but this gives a good average. http://howlongtobeat...ns%20of%20Kings - Plus you really ought to play through it again, what you do does have actual consequences, ACT2 is completely different depending on your choice.

Oh and I didn't actually see squiqpies post. Yes I've played PT, and yeah the story is better, but as a whole experience I prefer BG2.

If you read what I said, I did most of the sidequests. What I didn't do was a very small amount.
If you asked me to rate it mid-way through act 2 I'd give it a 9 or 9.5. It's like they have this perfectly paced plot and then they just kill it off. It really needed 2 more acts.

I did do a lot of exploring too, my estimate was probably a bit low. I think I did spend around 20-25 hours on it, but in comparison I probably spent around 40-50 hours on the first Witcher.

[SquigPie]

The Witcher was far longer than 30 hours. I spent 50+ hours in it (although I had to replay most of chapter 2 due to screwing up the investigation and losing one of the rune-thingies).

I played the two official modules (in other words free DLC) afterwards.

I'd love to try out 2 since I've heard so many good things about it. But my computer lags like hell even on lower graphics.

Gotta get a better pc sometime soon.

Besides, The Witcher was long because 50% of it was walking from one end of a fucking city to another, I loved the game, but the endless walking from one place to another really started to tire me. It also had alot of fetch-quests. Although they made more sense than it usually does in RPGs (your job is to hunt monsters after all).

[Ion Cannon!]

I did read what you wrote Alias, but I couldn't be bothered to change my post as it would have read the same anyway. What I was most annoyed about though was you saying there was only 9hrs gameplay, and I'm glad to see you've realised you undestimatred it. On your other points, I agree. It's almost like they gave us 3 chapters of a 5 chapter game. Still, what you get is very good, it's just sadly cut short. I hope to high heaven other developers will see what CDPR did and expand upon it, hopefully getting right the things CDPR got wrong.

[Sgt. Rho]

So I got myself BF:Bad Company 2 now, and I'd want to give this a 11 of 10, but since I can't do that, I'll give it a 10/10, for the immersion alone.

The graphics could use some work here and there, but overall they are top notch.

And now the reason for the 10 of 10. In the 2nd Match, massive firefight, I drive by 3 Abrams with the ATV as they fire in sequence, a T90 fires back, and an Abrams is hit by an RPG-7. I go back to the tanks and start repairing them. Then they fire again. It just looks and sounds amazing to see a tank, and even more so several tanks, fire from close-by.

[SquigPie]

LA Noire

8/10

I'd have given this a 9/10 (some interrogations are insanely illogical as to what the correct answer is). But LA Noire suffers from a classic video game illness. The so-called "Xen Syndrome" (or "Indigo Prophecy Syndrome" if you watch Zero Punctuation), In that it starts out good and keeps being good until the end where it suddenly takes a sharp drop in quality. In LA Noire, it doesn't seem to be due to lack of play-testing, but due to a bunch of horrible design decisions and plot turns. The game turns from a brilliant investigation adventure to killing hundreds of goons in linear tunnels. Another bad decision is

Spoiler

turning main character Cole Phelps into a side character and force the player to play the last 3 missions as the annoying, poorly-developed, Mary Sue, Jack Kelso. Then killing off Phelps in an extremely anticlimatic way.

Apart from this, LA Noire is a fantastic game, and I suggest reading all the proffesional reviews for all the positive stuff. I always suck at the positive stuff.

Edited by SquigPie, 09 August 2011 - 22:47.

[Krieger22]

Need for Speed: World 6/10

Decided the original was gibberish, I'll just give points.

The good:
Big car selection
World design is nice
Graphics are good
Plenty of customization options
Continually updated

The bad:
Bugs
Servers are occasionally overloaded
Balance
Synchronization between players is ridiculous
Cheaters
At least 50% of the community are chromic whiners (check the official forums)
Most of the community is composed of dolts

Edited by Krieger22, 28 October 2011 - 13:17.

[Slye_Fox]

Total: 26/30

Summery:
All I can say is, get it; it's a very fun game.
Like all the other Anno games, it has very similar gameplay to the previous incarnation, but it also stands out as it's own game too with new innovations and options in gameplay.

Game-play: 9/10
The game-play is quite fun to get into, with the starting missions introducing the game's mechanics quite well to new players, while allowing returning players to get right into the flow and pick up the new stuff quickly.
The only major problem I found what a mistake in a single build button: they forgot to add the Quay Wall's build button.

Graphics: 9/10
The game looks beautiful, I can run on full settings with no lag on my semi-old system (duo2 dual core, 2GB DDR2 RAM, geForce 9500 GT 512mb PCI-e), but when I run with shadows on anything other than 'off', I get this white overlay on the game, oh well.

Sounds: 8/10
They are very distinct and easy to make out, and the voice acting is so well done.
But I encountered a problem after a long session; the voices just stopped playing.

Release: 4/10
Might as well make a mention of this;
There was kind of a cock up with the steam release of the game, but was fixed within the first 12-16 hours.

[TheDR]

I played the demo and enjoyed it, I will definitely pick it up when I have some free time (after Skyrim ).

[Sgt. Rho]

I can only agree with Slye here. I have now for the 4th time in 2 days gotten to the point where I get an event message saying: "Played for 6 Hours" and the AI saying "I'm beginning to worry about your health."

[Alias]

Yeah, it's quite an enjoyable game, however I still personally prefer Total War where I can regularly sink in about 8 hours straight if I've got the time.

[Kichō]

Sengoku Basara 3 Utage. 8/10

Only complaint is that they're lazy (ie reskinning a weapon without doing too much) and lack of English release. However it's Capcom after all.

Anyone played these kind of games before?