What game are you playing?

[Rinaldo]

In some of them, like in the Call of Duty series, you get warnings if you attempt to step out the path the developers set out for you.

True & although I enjoy many modern games, this trend is a disgrace to the whole medium and its potential. Sadly, it sells. A lot.

Hope remains with developers trying to fight this cancer - the team behind Dishonored & I'd list Irrational's new Bioshock Infinite as well. It might be another theme park ride but at least it has themes that are worth riding.

[Lethevich]

Serious Sam 3. Slightly better than my already positive expectations. I was concerned about the inclusion of iron sights, but you can ignore them, yay!

[ibanezmonster]

The problem with Bioshock, and most other FPS games this days, is that they feel more like a theme park ride then an actual game.

I know the main reason why: they are overusing the technique of "stuff just happening for the first time right in front of you". The first time I remember seeing that was in the first Half-Life, and it was amazing, but barely used, so it was more believable.

The other factor is simply the environment in Bioshock. The underwater city, malfunctioning lighting, etc. just has that feel to it.

[Tapio Dimitriyevich Shostakovich]

Ok, jokes aside, seems like Bethesda has been improving quite a bit. This game doesn't seem to be the disaster Oblivion was, but its still Bethesda. Expect bad writing and bland dialog.

Did you play the civil war with Ulfric against Solitude? The ending is just sooo... useless and disappointing.

[Josquin des Prez]

I haven't finished the game yet. I'm about to buy a new desktop so i'm saving the game for when i can play it at maximum graphical detail.

[jowcol]

Did you play the civil war with Ulfric against Solitude? The ending is just sooo... useless and disappointing.

I haven't reached that yet-- I've been avoiding it so far (122 hrs) .  As much as I dig the Bethesda releases, the main story lines are inevitably a letdown. 

[DavidW]

I haven't reached that yet-- I've been avoiding it so far (122 hrs) .  As much as I dig the Bethesda releases, the main story lines are inevitably a letdown.

That is the most boring part of the game (imperials vs stormcloaks).  I've put in about 70 hours into Skyrim.  20 hours with a shifty mage character named Quick Ben, and 50 hours with a hero melee warrior named Whiskeyjack.  Erikson fans will get the references!

I love Skyrim it is now officially my favorite video game.  I just never run out of fun things to do, and I'm still discovering new places.

[jowcol]

That is the most boring part of the game (imperials vs stormcloaks).  I've put in about 70 hours into Skyrim.  20 hours with a shifty mage character named Quick Ben, and 50 hours with a hero melee warrior named Whiskeyjack.  Erikson fans will get the references!

I love Skyrim it is now officially my favorite video game.  I just never run out of fun things to do, and I'm still discovering new places.

I can see why some people don't like it.  In addition to the graphics engine, the "openness" and sheer scale makes it hard to craft a strong narrative.  And, even though they claim they recorded 60,000  lines of dialog, they could have done more.  I hear the same lines form different shopkeepers- that gets old. 

One problem I have with the story trees is that, 99% of the time, things will wait until you get there.  (I left Delphine waiting for me at Kynesgrove for about 50 hours of playing time.)   It would have been cool to have a model where the war goes on without you-- and unless you get involved, different holds would change allegiance, etc.  And better yet, have that determined randomly for EACH GAME, so that, strategically, no two games would be the same, and every time you entered a hold you'd get the chance to influence what happens.   Althouigh, the possible logic issues with other quests, etc would be formidable.

136 hours (I'm Scrotum the Nord, warrior/thief) , and I've just found ANOTHER major dwarven complex that took the whole evening to get through.    Another thing I like about it is that, after a while, to level up, you need to change your playing style.  I'm level 54,  and I've needed to avoid archery and heavy armor, since I've taken them all the way.  Which means that I need play differently if I want to grow.   I can still pick parts of the map and wander and keep finding new stuff. 

This is sick, but I'm already looking forward to starting my next game-- but I need to finish this one and work out my sleep deficit.

[DavidW]

I love those dwarven complexes!  But they're so huge you could sink a whole afternoon exploring one of them.  I especially like it when you follow ghosts that were there... and the whole steampunk vibe to those places, very cool, very refreshing change from the rest.

I think my favorite stuff to do are those daedric and divine quests.  My biggest disappointment was the Bard's college.  I was expecting/hoping for alot more than just 3 fetch quests.

[Karl Henning]

Fetchquest!

[Rinaldo]

It would have been cool to have a model where the war goes on without you-- and unless you get involved, different holds would change allegiance, etc.  And better yet, have that determined randomly for EACH GAME, so that, strategically, no two games would be the same, and every time you entered a hold you'd get the chance to influence what happens.

Mount & Blade. It's pretty rough around the edges but its medieval combat system (including horseback fighting) is amazing.

[stingo]

Started Limbo this week. Really good game.

[Josquin des Prez]

Hmm, this guy said that the women were too butch.

He was just being facetious. His main point was about the fact the nationalist side was somehow the "bigoted" side, reflecting a politically corrected mindset (I.E., you can't really chose a side in the game, the developers already did that for you). It was actually worst in the Witcher, where the issue was given a far grayer tone, that is, there was no clear good or bad side between the humans and the other races, yet, you could tell which was the "evil" option, mainly due the fact the humans had no redeeming quality whatsoever. This is not to say the dwarves or the elves didn't have their share of nasty qualities but the humans were thoroughly evil in almost every respect. The most amusing thing is that the protagonist was a human, but they tried to dodge the paradox by implying that the Witcher was somehow "raceless" due to his mutations.

I fully agree about the dialog, and the heavy use of exposition, but I haven't seen a video game that ever really blew me away in that regards.

Far for me to imply one should expect great dialog in a video game, but frankly there's no excuse for the level of juvenile, unprofessional writing most games contain today, not considering the amount of money some of those companies make. Better writing and storytelling is and has been possible in the past, and that often coming from developers, not even dedicated professional writers.

That said, Bethesda is known for making decent sandboxes and it seems this is what most people want today, even if some of the toys included aren't exactly among the most entertaining or well crafted.

[jowcol]

Mount & Blade. It's pretty rough around the edges but its medieval combat system (including horseback fighting) is amazing.

If you want to get deep in medieval warfare (strategic and unit  level) check out Sega Total War Medieval II.  That series supports turn based strategic, and real time tactical resolution of battles where you can view the action at most any angle you please.   I've spend more time gaming in that series over the last few years than all of the time I've spent on video game combined.   But I'm typically more into the strategy thing than FPS or RPG.

[Ataraxia]

If you want to get deep in medieval warfare (strategic and unit  level) check out Sega Total War Medieval II.  That series supports turn based strategic, and real time tactical resolution of battles where you can view the action at most any angle you please.   I've spend more time gaming in that series over the last few years than all of the time I've spent on video game combined.   But I'm typically more into the strategy thing than FPS or RPG.

Sounds interesting. Do you play Civilization?

[jowcol]

Sounds interesting. Do you play Civilization?

I played FreeCiv for a while- (the open source version), and it was fun, but got old after a while for me.

The Sega Series follow periods like Rome, Medieval, Fuedal Japan, etc.  My favorite is Empire-- global level of teh 18th century.  It has some issues (slow run times, etc), but the interaction of financial planning, military strategy, technology development, and government mixed with very colorful battles on a global scale is utterly mind-bending.  There are also so many other competing factions that you will never have the same game twice.  The next release was on the Napoleonic era- they cleaned up a lot of the mechanics and made it run much more efficiently, but it still isn't half as much fun as Empire, despite the latter's warts.

Think of these games as as Civilization focused on a given era, but when you fight battles, you get to lead units of individual soldiers and view from any angle.   You don't get the same sweep of history, but you get into the campaigns in far more detail.  And the Elephants are something to dread.

[Ataraxia]

Thanks. Sounds like something I'd like if I had the time.

[Rinaldo]

If you want to get deep in medieval warfare (strategic and unit  level) check out Sega Total War Medieval II.

I'm familiar with the Total War franchise, loved the first Shogun. Good to see a series that retained its quality over the years.

[Josquin des Prez]

I'm familiar with the Total War franchise, loved the first Shogun. Good to see a series that retained its quality over the years.

Sort of. There's been a steady decline in the quality of the artificial intelligence and other things starting with Rome, but it seems Shogun 2 was a return to the right direction, at least according to many. Never tried it myself.

My favored is still the first Medieval.

And on the line of Civilization/Real Time Strategy hybrids, i still rank Rise of Nations among the best. This one was actually designed by Brian Reynolds, one of the leads in Alpha Centauri and Civilization 2, and it shows. It leaves games like Age of Empires in the dust, that's for sure.

[Josquin des Prez]

Sounds interesting. Do you play Civilization?

I wouldn't compare Civilization to it. There's a top view, turn based strategy element to the game, but its very light. The real meat is in the actual battles. This isn't your average command and conquer clone. It simulates actual ancient battle tactics.