This video reminded me of why I'm steadily becoming more and more disappointed with today's games.
It's really getting old. Really. I know good single player experiences are hard to come by these days, but I'm sick of spending 80% of my time murdering wildlife, bandits, "terrorists", guards, robots, undead, mutants, f%!&ing zombies (I'm actually just sick of zombies in general), psychotic wasteland nomads, and entire mythology creature catalogues. Keep in mind that I'm not against video game violence at all--I'm just bored.
Alternative routes such as hacking, lock-picking, persuasion, and stealth are slowly creeping into more and more action games. Hell, Dishonored and Fallout: NV feature the option to avoid homicide entirely.
"The Thief series did this as well, so what are you complaining about?"
That is what I'm complaining about: applying action-genre expectations to titles that were never really about action. Thief was always about snagging more loot and staying out of sight, but the expectation of possible action fans playing the game almost demanded an arsenal of weaponry. Garrett could barely hold his own against one combatant, much less an entire squad of armed guards; nevertheless, one could outfit the master thief with explosives and go to town. I maintain that the Thief series should focus entirely on stealth and trickery and leave melee combat to the professionals.
"So go play something else like Sims or Portal!"
Why should fantasy, scifi, and period-themed games focus solely on violent conflict? Why can't I teach or attend a mages' school without the threat of supernatural invasion? Can space operas only exist during intergalactic wars? Should every mystery game star martial artists that face off against waves of hired mercenaries on a regular basis? I don't believe that combat or combat-avoidance scenarios are the only path to entertainment. Nor do I believe quick-time events are the only way to engage a player's attention .
Gameplay can be slow paced and dialogue-based without being dull and forgetable. Dishonored proved that excellent world-building can keep a player invested throughout a title's tedious bits of gameplay. How could a romance/slice-of-life game seem boring when set aboard an Enterprise-inspired starship?
My point is that there are gaping holes in the video game market and triple-A publishers are being too risk-averse to try anything other than a sports sim, WoW clone, or plotless military training software. This attitude cannot exist alongside "we need to expand our customer base" in a sane world. This issue has been on my mind for a while, but the initial intent was to link the video and generate some discussion regarding the over-saturation of violence in non-action genres.
For me, character design, interaction with NPCs and multiple paths to solve problems make a good game--shooting as the main goal just doesn't cut it...
You need to play some point and click adventure games. Yeah, they are pretty much dead as a genre now, though there have been attempts to revive them. If you haven't tried them, try Grim Fandango, Full Throttle and a bunch of others. A Vampyre Story is a more modern offering, which I have not played. Keepsake is good. Psychonauts was fun. There are a number of more experimental games in the indie scene: Machinarium is a good example among many. Planescape: Torment has combat aplenty, of course, but it has plenty more to offer if you can stand the somewhat tedious battles.
|
Grim fandango isn't point and click...but i agree.
You can finish planescape without fighting a single time.
Also those are all old games. I believe that OP was bemusing the fact that no new games are made that are not incessantly violent. Seriously, the only two games i can remember where you can go full stealth without killing anyone is Deus Ex Human Revolution and Dishonored.
Unfortunately, the expanding gamer base has led to a large chunk of gamers being lazy and dumb, not wanting to bother with anything beyond going down a corridor and shooting everything that moves. Because god forbid if you have to use your brain.
|
There are quite a few P&C adventures that have come out in the last few years, there are games like 'The Cave', Amnesia, the beforementioned 'Dishonored' and DX-Human Revolution. While I agree, it wouldn't hurt if more games supported different playstyles and offered more solutions then fighting, I don't see the variety of games decreasing since the 'old days'.
That, sir, is an awesome link.
Grim Fandango is pointy and clicky enough. =) Finishing Planescape: Torment without fighting random encounters should be extremely difficult. Another interesting tidbit is that if you can stand typing, the text adventure genre of such classics as "A mind forever voyaging" and "Zork" is actually alive today, now called Interactive Fiction, and has a decidedly more literary bent today. Typical games in the genre assume that violence is not a solution.
I want more Sandbox Games. Things like Fallout. Have Combat/Stealth options in the game.
I agree, and yet I disagree.
On the one hand, yes, these things could do with some changing. Mindless violence is mindless and adds nothing to the game. Having non-combat options is always fun and can be done very well (as Dishonored showed).
I disagree with some specific examples. That Red Dead Redemption's combat detracted from the experience, for one thing. I always thought it was very well done in that.
But no, this shouldn't be changed just because mindless violence is just padding (though that is certainly A reason). It should be changed because it starts to violate the rule of Fun.
Fun being defined as "A form of pleasure with surprises" (<---Currently the official definition of fun for Game Design).
Violence is no longer surprising. It is expected. That's what made Dishonored so good. Everywhere you would expect to have to fight the 10 enemies you can spot from your cover...you have the capability to move past them without anyone ever knowing you were there at all. It was fun because it was unexpected.
This is probably why games like Contra (AKA "Generic Side Scrolling Mindless Shooter") fell out of favor, there was no longer anything surprising about the violence, it became par for the course, necessitating at the very least a shift to a new form of violence from a different perspective (first person or over the shoulder third person).
Now for my main "disagreement". At one point he asks "Why has our capability for portraying violence increased while our capability for portraying dialogue in RPGs not". Simply put there's only so many (intuitive) ways you can spin a conversation. The branching dialogue tree is simple and gets the job done while allowing player choice. I would honestly be hard pressed to think of another way to intuitively portray dialogue.
On the other hand, new ways to portray violence is easy. Make it look nice (or brutal), and vary the ways you can kill guys (Lasers, acid, fire, bullets, explosives, sex toys, magic, etc.) and you're set. Not hard.
If you're going to have violence, may as well make it better because new and violent ways to kill people is basically a brainstorming session and a bit of code away from being complete.
Now, I like shootouts and stuff in my games, to an extent. I just finished playing Sleeping Dogs and I liked the fairly regular breaks for action sequences, be they car chases (or the variant where you're the passenger and need to shoot people, or are the DRIVER and need to shoot people), street fights with random thugs who know kung fu (but your kung fu is better), or good ol' fashioned shoot 'em ups. The surprise came from WHEN the enemies attacked, HOW they attacked, and WHY they were attacking.
And the most important for when to add violence is that there is a WHY to their attack, rather than just a "We need a fight here, it's been a while without an action scene".
Basically, if you can't get rid of violence and you can't vary it, it can still be interesting if there's a legitimate reason for it, even if the reason for it is "We moved in on their territory with that score yesterday, and now they want payback". The violence needs to mesh with the narrative is what I'm sayin'.
I really want Dishonored... Is it true that it is a Sandbox Game?
I really want Dishonored... Is it true that it is a Sandbox Game?
Eh, sorta kinda.
It's mission based-ish, and each mission takes place in a certain area. Within that area, you can go anywhere you wish, and there's generally at LEAST 3 different routes for each different playstyle in each area.
What I mean by that is, if you wanna sneak you can go rooftop, sewers, ground level sticking to the shadows, Possession, etc.
If you want to fight you can jump from rooftops and attack from behind while everyone's startled, walk straight up and gank a mother, teleport up to a guy in stealth an plant a mine on him killing a whole group, etc.
If you want to just get somewhere as fast as possible while running past or avoiding all enemies (but not necessarily with stealth) there's usually the ol' "Teleport spam straight forward", find a hidden tunnel you can sprint through, or at least one less guarded area where you can take out or run past a single guard and keep moving.
And even with direct combat you can buy an upgrade that lets you knock people out with sleepy darts mid-combat so you can have a non-lethal combat focused guy (no non-lethal sword moves or a non-lethal primary, unfortunately).
So are they small areas or larger?
And the No Non-Lethal Primary is sad but makes sense from what I gather of the story.
Fairly big sized areas. Many are kind of narrow though (limited to city streets, though there are back alleys and branching streets in some areas), but they're wide enough and often very long, and the verticality makes them seem even bigger.
So lots of Square Footage but not a Manapunk Assassin's Creed/Infamous?...
And I now know what game I am going to suggest to my friends once they finish their current project for PSN/Xbox Download...
NOTE: Manapunk is a combination of Magic and Steampunk. Sort of like the Iron Kingdoms setting.
A Fully Sandbox game would typically be more towards a MMO...
I loved Prototype and Infamous but the missions were to linear. I liked FFXII but the story came to slow.
The game my friend is currently working on, which I have mentioned Here is a Sandbox Game that has numerous options to finish. It literally is a Fallout meets Zombie Survival Game. Emphasis on Survival. I think I got to "Level 5" in the game before I got enough ammo to where I could reasonably Run & Gun the game and that was with me only firing 3 shots throughout the time I was playing.
I would also like to note that it is developed by a Woman and that is why the Character Images where of a Female PC.
You need to play some point and click adventure games. Yeah, they are pretty much dead as a genre now, though there have been attempts to revive them. If you haven't tried them, try Grim Fandango, Full Throttle and a bunch of others. A Vampyre Story is a more modern offering, which I have not played. Keepsake is good. Psychonauts was fun. There are a number of more experimental games in the indie scene: Machinarium is a good example among many. Planescape: Torment has combat aplenty, of course, but it has plenty more to offer if you can stand the somewhat tedious battles.
Point & Click titles are good to fall back on when nothing else is available, but I can only play through the things once (exceptions exist) without getting bored and calling it a night. In today's market the P&C style has mutated into the Hidden Objects "genre" of gaming; the art and music contained are often good...but that's all.
*Machinarium was never finished thanks to that awful connect-four puzzle that would not accept any solution.
Seriously, the only two games i can remember where you can go full stealth without killing anyone is Deus Ex Human Revolution and Dishonored.
Unfortunately, the expanding gamer base has led to a large chunk of gamers being lazy and dumb, not wanting to bother with anything beyond going down a corridor and shooting everything that moves. Because god forbid if you have to use your brain.
The fun thing about Deus Ex was building a stealth character and then getting thrown into a cage match with Bomb-Fingers Mcgee. The boss sequences were certainly the worst part of the game.
Another interesting tidbit is that if you can stand typing, the text adventure genre of such classics as "A mind forever voyaging" and "Zork" is actually alive today, now called Interactive Fiction, and has a decidedly more literary bent today. Typical games in the genre assume that violence is not a solution.
Interactive fiction is not something I can stick to easily: I start off just fine, but eventually I get bored, wander off, and do a bit of writing on my own. It's like launching Skyrim and spending a few minutes "cooking" only to get hungry, kill the game, and start prepping vegetables for soup. Visual novels are a genre I'd love to see grow and expand into western audiences.
Unless you have mentioned it elsewhere, Deus-Ex:Human Revolution has an enormous sneaky sneaky focus if you want, including a whole concept of NOT KILLING the bad guys...
Unless you have mentioned it elsewhere, Deus-Ex:Human Revolution has an enormous sneaky sneaky focus if you want, including a whole concept of NOT KILLING the bad guys...
Except as Necromancer says, until you get to any of the boss fights, where they cutscene your character who has stealthed through the entire mission so he walking casually into the middle of a room where he can get suprized by the boss, and then force a shootout.
I've been playing the Hitman games lately (just beat 2 and Contracts, a decent way into Blood Money).
Now, granted, it's about as "murder simulator-y" as you can get in a game. It's called Hitman for cryin' out loud.
But the ways you can go about carrying out the hit make it sorta kind what the OP's looking for.
First off, you are never forced to kill anyone but your target. You can always sneak or disguise past them, or knock them out with sedative.
It's kinda like a point and click adventure in that every area and item has a specific purpose you can use to further your goals.
And you can go through the entire game without anyone ever knowing you're there. After all, it's a tragic accident if someone's chandelier falls on their head, not a murder.
On the other hand, you CAN go on a rampage and shot everyone and everything between you and your target until you find them, but that's much less fun and a lot more dangerous.
Except as Necromancer says, until you get to any of the boss fights, where they cutscene your character who has stealthed through the entire mission so he walking casually into the middle of a room where he can get suprized by the boss, and then force a shootout.
Which is highly odd and disappointing.
That said, the Boss fights dont count against you for the Pacifist achievement though. Still, at some point I suppose it is reasonable that teh elite-ninja-cyber-commando types will occasionally get something right and get the jump on the protagonist.
Although that said, how many of them do you actually 'kill'?
At least the first one.
Pretty sure ALL of them get killed.
I never really minded it. They are, after all, the guys that killed your girlfriend and shattered your body beyond normal medical repair.
Yeah I played through nice for a while, but then decided that making a mess was just more appropriate from time to time. Spare the numpties you can, trash the bad guys you can't.
On a side note, I'd love to see the same game re-skinned in Feudal Japan as a Ninja sim. It also played very much like Vampire:Masquerade-Bloodlines, which was a seriously under rated game (in which you can also sneaky peaky around in)
In re-reading the recent responses, I think I should mention that murdering characters in a game is not the same as joining them in melee/firefights. The aforementioned Hitman franchise excels at offering homicide in small, reasonable packages.
I would've been completely satisfied had the boss sequences in Deus Ex: HR offered an optional route to gradually reduce site security in such a way that allowed the player to stealthily slice up the bosses via cinematics. Instead, I find Jensen moonwalking into plain sight. It just reeks of limited time and an absence of creative problem solving: can't figure out a perfect way to allow for stealth kills, so let's just trigger an alternate movie if PC never tripped an alarm. Simple.
This is why I avoid online gaming, and I typically stick to driving games and puzzle-heavy survival horror on the console. Driving is just a mindless, fun activity (especially in the more gonzo games that expect you to trash your vehicle), and though they can be cut-scene heavy, survival horror at least often gives you something creative and nasty to look at during the cut-scenes, and the genre features many tropes for justifying the presence of puzzles. The stories are typically more engaging, and often feature better twists.
I guess I just don't expect much of anything else from video games. I don't really believe there are any advances on the horizon in terms of AI as relates to gaming that would make the experience of ANY game much more than pointing, clicking, and then watching the programmers take all the fun by engaging the character(s) in a cut scene over which I have no control.
Some day that will change, but until then it occurs to me that the best gaming remains at a table. It still trumps any other experience.
I think other than the first three Silent Hill games (which blew my mind with engaging stories in 1999, 2001, and 2003), the last game that really intrigued me was Myst. Yes, I've had a lot of fun since then. But did anything else expand my horizons? As far as I'm concerned, the video game industry has been in a rut since 1994.
On a related note: Bioshock ∞, 3, Infinite, Thimble, whatever...
I've not played Bioshock Infinite firsthand (only watching) and I don't care for the setting(s), but I was willing to give this a try--that is, until I realized that Elizabeth wasn't a playable character.
I truly spent several minutes looking over the preorder screen before it occurred to me.
After hearing praise regarding the game's ending, I decided to investigate. I read a detailed spoiler filled with dialogue transcripts and began watching playthroughs. I gave up on OMFGcata's channel due to delays, but found a few nice videos without the player's voice interfering. Despite sitting in the passenger's seat, I can safely say that Infinite's combat added nothing to the game other than a reminder that there was a rail system we could use.
The story's a bit predictable, but it's not a bad one at all. Once the credits and the last scene wrapped, I realized that the story and experience had been crippled. We could've experienced the tale through Elizabeth's eyes--focusing on stealth, dialogue, unsettling reality shifts, and exploration. Instead, we get the POV of a plot device. I'd be really disgusted had I actually bought the damn thing.
The need to fit this title into the role of a shooter only held it back.
I think other than the first three Silent Hill games (which blew my mind with engaging stories in 1999, 2001, and 2003), the last game that really intrigued me was Myst.
Ever check out Rule of Rose? It's worth digging up a playthrough.
Rule of Rose is awesome.
Haunting Ground is another of my favorites.
I wish I could have actually bought copies instead of borrowing them. Unfortunately I can remember most of the story from the 2.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On a related note: Bioshock ∞, 3, Infinite, Thimble, whatever...
** spoiler omitted **
I think it's safe to say that your opinions here are in the very, very small minority as concerns Infinite's combat. It's not the greatest FPS combat ever, but many reviews praised the dynamic nature of its combat encounters, not to mention how refreshing it was to have a female NPC protagonist that you didn't have to constantly look after and who could be relied upon in combat to alter the landscape in interesting ways.
|
Well, I have to admit I have a soft spot for grinding, I loved the original dragon warrior for the NES. Heck, I can't even play the elder scrolls games (too boring).
Story focused games where always a kind of unique category. wasn't there a game series called mist that was along that lines. Indigo Prophecy and Siberia come to mind (Indigo prophecy almost had me interested). I remember clocktower you basically had to run away or hide whenever the serial killer came for you. Recently I played the free Embric of Wulfhammer, and it was amusing especially with all of the D&D references, and extremely little combat (which was optional). I guess they're still out there, but since game developers are not usually the best story tellers they fall back on combat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Now for my main "disagreement". At one point he asks "Why has our capability for portraying violence increased while our capability for portraying dialogue in RPGs not". Simply put there's only so many (intuitive) ways you can spin a conversation. The branching dialogue tree is simple and gets the job done while allowing player choice. I would honestly be hard pressed to think of another way to intuitively portray dialogue.
I'm bound to disagree, somewhat. The thing is that while combat is usually player skill based, dialouge rarely is - that can make it less exciting. Often it is also not character skill based; while the combat can make or break the story and your and your characters skills and capabilities affect this, dialouge is often written in stone beforehand even when you get a choice on the specific wording.
Some games, quite common in classical RPG's, also include character skill in it - allowing smart or charismatic characters to succeed better than stupid ones.
A few games, such as Oblivion, include player skill to some degree but so far it hasn't been very interesting when it comes to being immersive.
I think exploring how player skill can affect dialogue could greatly enhance the experience when it comes to the social parts of a game. Things such as getting to time what you say when, and observing the npc's reaction to what you say and adjust according to that, could make dialogue more interesting.
A few rough ideas, that of course would need refinement but could be worth exploring:
- More dynamic relationships between the PC and NPC's, that also travel beyond the personal; be mean to a kid and their parents and friends will dislike you.
- NPC's expression slightly changes depending on how well your tone is recieved and you can always choose between different tones.
- Being able to notice specifics about them by hovering mouse over specific key parts; clicking on a blackeye to ask how they got it for example, or learn clues about a persons personality and what tone they like by looking what they wear and their body language etc.
- Having to time what you stress when making a threat/lying/trying to persuade someone; if it goes well they react stronger to it.
And of course, these need to be combined with stories and characters that are actually interesting. I think that's part of why combat games are so popular to make: It takes a lot more work to make 50+ interesting _characters_ than 5000 monsters/goons to shoot.
That said, games have to have more than one type of gameplay. A pure dialogue-based game would be hard to pull of. But right now, most games have combat plus something more as main gameplay (whether social like mass effect, platformer like tomb raider or sneaking like dishonored), and I think games could be combined in other ways. Games that do generally stand out, and are sometimes very successful (minecraft, the sims) while at other times staying niche games (point and clicks, penumbra).
I think there are many ways in which social interaction can be improved, though doing it is taking a risk and putting a lot of work into a game that might go bad with the general public. So I think it's unlikely we'll see that kind of game from any of the big developers, and indie games tend to have their flaws too.
That said, I have to recommend the games The Longest Journey and Dreamfall to everyone who wants a less combaty fantasy/scifi game. There is some combat in the game, but it's only a little and doesn't feel as much as "filler" as in other games. It focuses heavily on story, has some great dialogue and a bit of sneaking.
I think it's safe to say that your opinions here are in the very, very small minority as concerns Infinite's combat. It's not the greatest FPS combat ever, but many reviews praised the dynamic nature of its combat encounters, not to mention how refreshing it was to have a female NPC protagonist that you didn't have to constantly look after and who could be relied upon in combat to alter the landscape in interesting ways.On a related note: Bioshock ∞, 3, Infinite, Thimble, whatever...
** spoiler omitted **
I'm not critiquing the nature of the combat: I'm questioning its purpose in Infinite. Yes, I know it's an action title first and foremost, but that's thanks to Levine's willingness to substitute significant chunks of creativity and artistry for commercial success. At least the first Bioshock's combat offered links to the setting, story, and general theme of the game; for example, plasmids were tied directly to ADAM, whereas vigors might as well be spells. Oh, I get that the "airborne" theme can be applied to vigors, but that's just sweeping dirt under the rug.
|
Rule of Rose is awesome.
Haunting Ground is another of my favorites.
I wish I could have actually bought copies instead of borrowing them. Unfortunately I can remember most of the story from the 2.
Haunting Ground is amazing. Rule of Rose might be OK storywise, but the gameplay is so utterly broken that it's only a half-step above unplayable.
|
|
not to mention how refreshing it was to have a female NPC protagonist that you didn't have to constantly look after and who could be relied upon in combat to alter the landscape in interesting ways.
Of course, she never actually alters the landscape on her own initiative. Like a good little woman, she only does so when a man tells her to.
:P
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That said, I have to recommend the games The Longest Journey and Dreamfall to everyone who wants a less combaty fantasy/scifi game. There is some combat in the game, but it's only a little and doesn't feel as much as "filler" as in other games. It focuses heavily on story, has some great dialogue and a bit of sneaking.
There's also a third game in the series coming, and the possibility of a fourth.
|
This is an interestng thread!
I actualy find myself only partialy agreeing, as my perspective on the subject is a bit wider - for me, computer games are just another way to consume a good story.
I play Pathfinder, I read books, I watch TV and go to the theatre and watch movies... and I also play computer games. For me the difference is the delivery, not the essance.
So from my point of view, I am not very interested in computer games that lack violance. When I play Pathfinder, while sometimes entire sessions can pass without combat, the central plot stil always involves a violent conflict. When I read a book, I can of need violance to keep interested (I don't mind at all about slow books or few action scenes, I just need there to be high stakes, usualy life-or-death, to find the plot interesting. Sue me).
Same goes for computer games - why on earth would I want to play a "slice of life on a spaceship" game? I need a story to be remarkable, and for me that requires action (in addition to many other elements).
I also believe many games out there today do much more than just portray violance - mass effect and dragon age are prime examples, but so is portal, bioshock and even call of duty 2 (back when the series was about showing us the horrors of war through the eyes of a soldier of no great importance who just wants to survive while displaying great courage. modern Call of Duty games are about being a mindless supersoldier slaughtering evil people). If your game does something besides having good shooting action, then it's not a mindless shooter and it's fine as it is.
What I would not mind seeing is more diversity in games - some games need less action than others (like the awesome guy in the video pointed out, LA Noire could have done with less, as could have "colonial marines"), some need DIFFERENT action than others - for example, the way "The Last of Us" seems to put an emphasis on fighting small (5-6 opponents) groups of guerilla fighters, and dishonored uses trickery and stealth and magic in its combat system.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think exploring how player skill can affect dialogue could greatly enhance the experience when it comes to the social parts of a game. Things such as getting to time what you say when, and observing the npc's reaction to what you say and adjust according to that, could make dialogue more interesting.
A few rough ideas, that of course would need refinement but could be worth exploring:
- More dynamic relationships between the PC and NPC's, that also travel beyond the personal; be mean to a kid and their parents and friends will dislike you.
Ah. I was mostly talking about the interface itself ("Pick your dialogue from this menu), which this doesn't really change.
But this:
- NPC's expression slightly changes depending on how well your tone is recieved and you can always choose between different tones.
- Being able to notice specifics about them by hovering mouse over specific key parts; clicking on a blackeye to ask how they got it for example, or learn clues about a persons personality and what tone they like by looking what they wear and their body language etc.
Is a great idea, definitely. Would be a good way to shake up the formula. Maybe I'll steal it one day. ;)
Though you forget consoles in the mix with the "hovering the mouse" bit.
- Having to time what you stress when making a threat/lying/trying to persuade someone; if it goes well they react stronger to it.
This is also pretty neat, but I think has a bit more potential for backfire. Once the point and click mechanics have been introduced, they'll be fairly simple for players to get (especially if the click boxes are big enough).
However, many don't like rhythm mechanics like you would get from DDR or something, and probably aren't looking to do something like that if they want to be an intimidating/manipulative bastard.
It's kinda like the hacking minigame from Deus Ex: Human Revolution. Neat idea...but ultimately kinda tedious and frustrating.
Agreed, a timing mechanic would have to be well-designed to work well. But I think that's part of the point of the video: A lot of stuff in shooters have been rough and badly designed in the beginning, but gotten better and better along the way. Social interaction hasn't gotten the same development.
One area that often utilizes a timing system are the many different mechanics that have been used to pick locks in games; the largest titles that use this I can think of right of the bat would be Thief 3, Oblivion, Skyrim, and Fallout 3/New Vegas.
The development from oblivion to fallout and later to skyrim is very clear - the mechanic has gotten much smoother, and while I hated picking locks in oblivion it works very well in skyrim. On the other hand, oblivion had a timing system for social interaction to increase how much someone liked you, and that was very clunky and skyrim dropped it completely, relying completely on character skill instead.
Haunting Ground is amazing. Rule of Rose might be OK storywise, but the gameplay is so utterly broken that it's only a half-step above unplayable.Rule of Rose is awesome.
Haunting Ground is another of my favorites.
I wish I could have actually bought copies instead of borrowing them. Unfortunately I can remember most of the story from the 2.
Meh. Story > Gameplay though only slightly better.
The ideas of dialogue improvements reminded me of Deus Ex: HR's social minigame -- Link. I personally felt that it needed more detail, but still an excellent step forward; what'd you guys think?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That said, I have to recommend the games The Longest Journey and Dreamfall to everyone who wants a less combaty fantasy/scifi game. There is some combat in the game, but it's only a little and doesn't feel as much as "filler" as in other games. It focuses heavily on story, has some great dialogue and a bit of sneaking.There's also a third game in the series coming, and the possibility of a fourth.
Has anyone mentioned the excellent Back to the Future game by Telltale games yet?
Or the as far as I've heard even better Walking Dead by the same company?
Go play some Rune Factory, if you've got one of the right platforms for it. While it's technically got a violent element (monsters that have escaped into your world you have to "Send back to their home dimension" by vanquishing them with a weapon), it's basically about farming and building up a town, and you use your fantasy adventuring as a supplement to your "real" job living as a contributing member to the local economy. The violent elements are very downplayed--and you're also encouraged to "befriend" some monsters instead of vanquish them as they'll become workers for you. It is also way more fun than I am making it sound.
My favorite so far is Rune Factory 3 for the DS, where you play a were-sheep. :)
(If you want just the farming, play Harvest Moon, but that doesn't have the fantasy elements Rune Factory does.)
I agree with you that it would be nice to have some more games that were adventure games but not necessarily games where the main point is to kill things (as much as I also enjoy such games sometimes). And it is a shame most of the games like that are now considered oldskool.
Why are all console exclusive games so good? I want to play them, but i don't want to waste my money on consoles, when my PC is infinite times better and more powerful.
Well, I think both PC and console games have some gems in their libraries. But consoles need some exclusives to help sell the consoles; such is capitalism. I know how you feel, though, I've missed out on some good stuff because I didn't want to buy the console.
That said, I am very glad I have my Nintendo 3DS. Unlike my computer, I can stick my 3DS in my pocket, and doesn't charge data usage like my phone. So I feel like it's worth having in addition to my PC. It may not be powerful but it's got a good game library (including all DS games) that's pretty damn extensive. Plus unlike TV-plug-in consoles these days, the handhelds are at least still somewhat plug and play. To me the whole point of consoles is to pop the game in and go; on next gen consoles you have to download games and download DLC and download patches, I'd rather just stick with my PC where I have to do that anyway, and which is at least in my opinion easier to fiddle with and troubleshoot when something goes on. Sadly even the plug and play things will disappear, but that just means like you I'll just stick with my PC (or whatever comes to replace PCs over time).