Ugh, the bench pressing. RPG elements aren't bad tho, they just turned it into a chore. Being able to customize the way your character plays is always to my liking.
And god, that dating/bowling stuff was horrid.
There is no scientific research as of yet to indicate that the portrayal of violence or a certain lifestyle will make you behave in that way.
Which means people are capable of playing a gangster in a game and still realizing real-life gangsters are criminals and need some serious arresting.
But most importantly, not every game needs to be Le Louvre-worthy art. We don't need games to remind us of the core of our existence. We need to have fun. Taking this to seriou...
As someone with ADD, you're full of crap. The way games are designed, it means you're nearly never distracted (in fact, the constant short term goals and rewards make it ideal) just like it doesn't matter that you have ADD when you're playing football.
People (obviously not me) who dislike the series usually:
- dislike this kind of humour
- don't like the shooting parts
- don't like games allround
AC3 wasn't that bad. It wasn't up to par with the series, but there was some fun to be had. At the very least you had the tree running, as an addition to buildings, the naval combat was a nice sideshow.
So you went from a party-based, isometric RPG as your fav to the witcher's action combat? Talk about different leagues, that's a different sport alltogether. DA:O is a lot more in the Icewind Dale wheelhouse.
Then again, you did compare Mass Effect, Skyrim, Dragon Age and the Witcher, which in RPG terms is like comparing Age of Empires and Call of Duty.
Lookin' forward to TW3 tho.
@Fragmntagmn
edit: read the update, consider me (mostly) reassured
Naturally I hope you're right, it's just that I felt that the balance between crazy-ass-shit (eloquently stated) and realism-immersion kinda ruined GTAIV.
That said, the Trevor character is a good indication that (even in the campaign) there might be some fun to be had. (Though a trailer of funny/mental action would be reassuring)
Which is a problem for me. The greatest thing in GTA is being able to go on a massive and totally unrealistic killing spree, followed by a police chase, SWAT chase, FBI chase and then a complete army invasion, ending in tank-to-tank battles. Or just have a nice day in the sun on top of a carpark sniping my way to the headshot-hall of fame.
Stealing a jet and bombing area 51 doesn't sound a lot like
"...all of it will be plausible, carefully framed by the plot. You won't see anyone doing crazy things for no reason. "
now does it?
I would very much like that!
Somehow I'm not to psyched about most of these characters coming back. I remember some of them as whiny, others as goodie two-shoes, maybe Bioware went a bit over the top with the human interest angle in some characters.
Plus some new, distinctly different characters would be nice. A mad rogue for example, or a childhood prodigy-wizard who looks all cute and then sets everything ablaze.
This is disappointing. There needs to be an element of over-the-top, madness inducing violence and action, both in the story and the free roaming experience. And things that don't really make sense. No one ever explained why there we're gangs of elvis-imitators in GTA2 and yet it was awesome.
I may be getting old but I had more fun with GTA and especially GTA2 than with any GTA-game since. Sure the newer ones are better games, with better stories, etc. But placing DLC above these classics? They didn't even include the GTA London expansion.
Perhaps to today's gamer all these handheld-games and GTAIV are a better experience than the classics, but in '99 GTA2 was a lot more fun than GTA4 was in 2008.
I agree, but the kind of graphical improvements talked about in the article are in fact a welcome change to the kind of 'better textures, more polygons'-thinking. It's less about photorealism and more about immersion.
The fact that the landscape changes because of how you play, for example, would be both in terms of graphics and gameplay a great achievement.
After seeing the gameplay trailer, I actually feel it looks very current gen. I remember being a lot more impressed with Skyrim screens at the time. Now, graphics luckily aren't what makes GTA great, but still. Take a look at TW3, that's what next gen looks like.
Just free roam isn't always better than linear. Open world isn't always better than linear. I'll take a compelling storyline over 'just open world' anyday.
There are these little autistic tendencies in me that happen when I see a 10/10. 100% means it could not be better, say a game comes (let's pray) that is as good as BI in every aspect, with fenomenal combat. What score would you give that? 11/10?
People should just give rational scores. Best game you've ever played? 9.5! Great and GOTY contender: 9. Good game, with some original elements: 8.
A 10/10 should be for a game that is so good, you're ne...
DA2 combat wasn't that tactical, you had your 1 favorite attack per character, and you buttonmashed that until all foes were dead.
I liked the old school DA:O combat much better. I mean you were forced to have your POV so close that it was impossible to keep any kind of oversight.
Don't think they know all they did wrong with DA2, if only because not everyone agrees on what's wrong with it. For example there's a great deal of people who feel the combat had improved in DA2, while there's also people who saw the spiritual successor to BG2 die and turn into another buttonmasher (guess it's obvious what I think).
DA2 combat= people will be disappointed
DA:O combat= people will be disappointed
It's still a while before it's out. By that time, you'll be ready for it. (But will your wallet be?)