| Forum Index > General Games |
|
Simberto
Germany11735 Posts
I have absolutely no interest in having dozens of different steamalikes on my system, each for one game which is exclusive for it. If you make games, concentrate on making games and selling them, don't try to sell me a stupid system i don't want in addition to the game. Nonetheless, i will be watching this closely. | ||
|
esKq
France134 Posts
On March 16 2012 22:14 FireBearHero wrote: Not yet, screen shots are supposedly coming at the same time next week (same time as in when the countdown ended yesterday). I know this already. I was asking if people had an idea regardless of the lack of screenshots. | ||
|
-Archangel-
Croatia7457 Posts
On March 16 2012 22:14 Simberto wrote: Why does everyone and his dog have to release obscure new distribution systems and make their games exclusive for them? I find that incredibly annoying. Can't they just release their games on every system, thus making them more successful, and try to make their platform better then others through cheaper prices etc... I have absolutely no interest in having dozens of different steamalikes on my system, each for one game which is exclusive for it. If you make games, concentrate on making games and selling them, don't try to sell me a stupid system i don't want in addition to the game. Nonetheless, i will be watching this closely. Except this system is probably not like Steam as in it doesn't force you to be online while playing or gather information about you in the background. | ||
|
TheToast
United States4808 Posts
| ||
|
plated.rawr
Norway1676 Posts
Just like Dungeon Keeper 3 and Thief 4. | ||
|
solidbebe
Netherlands4921 Posts
On March 16 2012 23:39 TheToast wrote: Just read the news about this, and I am dissappointed to say the least. Baldur's Gate games are awesome, they don't need an update or "enhancement". Would much rather have seen BG3 than a rehash of the same game. You may not think so, but releasing an enanced edition has the potential to expose alot of new people to the game. Is that a bad thing at all? I don't think so. | ||
|
Perryboyce
United States8 Posts
Can anyone who's experienced both tell me how close they are to each other? | ||
|
TheToast
United States4808 Posts
On March 16 2012 23:46 solidbebe wrote: You may not think so, but releasing an enanced edition has the potential to expose alot of new people to the game. Is that a bad thing at all? I don't think so. I suppose not. I guess being someone who got into PC gaming in the 90s, I just have a chip on my shoulder about how the subsequent generation of gamers dismisses some of the best games ever made because their graphics aren't spectacular. In some ways (maybe irrationally) I feel like taking old games and "enhancing them" to peddle to a new generation of graphics obsessed console kiddies somehow demenes the games. Just how I feel. Also, I'm dissappointed that it's not BG3.  | ||
|
NeonFlare
Finland1307 Posts
| ||
|
plated.rawr
Norway1676 Posts
On March 16 2012 23:53 Perryboyce wrote: I've read through the book series but never played the games. Can anyone who's experienced both tell me how close they are to each other? Considering you can import your character from BG1 to BG2, and it makes sense storywise, I'd say they're in very rapid succession, chronologically. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10842 Posts
 .The main story does not really pick up again until Tob... | ||
|
HwangjaeTerran
Finland5967 Posts
Some fixes in the UI + better graphics and no excessive retardation = success. | ||
|
MrTortoise
1388 Posts
that is all Hence half life 1 multiplayer never being popular. anyone else slightly disappointed now the announcement is out? I wish I was 15 years younger then my life could begin again with BG. 1997-1998 was one hell of a year for computer games. | ||
|
Volrath
Sweden45 Posts
On March 16 2012 23:53 TheToast wrote: I suppose not. I guess being someone who got into PC gaming in the 90s, I just have a chip on my shoulder about how the subsequent generation of gamers dismisses some of the best games ever made because their graphics aren't spectacular. In some ways (maybe irrationally) I feel like taking old games and "enhancing them" to peddle to a new generation of graphics obsessed console kiddies somehow demenes the games. Just how I feel. Also, I'm dissappointed that it's not BG3. They are planning to do a BG3, atleast they want to. If this succeeds then there is a higher chance of it happening. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11735 Posts
On March 16 2012 23:10 -Archangel- wrote: Except this system is probably not like Steam as in it doesn't force you to be online while playing or gather information about you in the background. Which is pretty much irrelevant nonetheless. My point was that i find it exceedingly annoying that so many games are exclusive on one thing, obviously trying to get more people to use their system. I think that games should be games, and those digital distribution platforms should compete on their own. A game will obviously sell less copies when it is exclusive on some platform. If a platform is superior to steam, as you seem to think it is, it should be able to gain a competetive advantage out of that superiority, and not try to force people to use it by making games exclusive for that platform, and in that way hurting the game itself to benefit a platform that is pretty much irrelevant for me. Furthermore, i want the possibility to choose the platform i like, instead of having to have a dozen of those, because each has its own exclusive titles. I think that for me as a customer, the best system is one where each game is available at many different places, instead of one where you can only get each game at one specific place, which combines the disadvantages of someone having a monopoly with the disadvantages of having multiple platforms. If your distribution platform works better, is cheaper, less intrusive or whatever else, let that be the point that convinces people to buy from you instead of somewhere else. Don't try to force people into your platform by putting exclusive titles on there, that will only mean that people buy exactly that title of your platform and then go back to whereever they were before because they want to deal with your stuff the smallest possible amount. I personally find this trend of every publisher noticing that steam makes a lot of money and putting up their own half-assed service, and making their games exclusive to that service pretty annoying, and especially bad for me as a customer. I don't see any reason why i would ever be for platform exclusive titles. | ||
|
andrewlt
United States7702 Posts
On March 16 2012 23:46 solidbebe wrote: You may not think so, but releasing an enanced edition has the potential to expose alot of new people to the game. Is that a bad thing at all? I don't think so. I'm not sure about that. This game's target audience seems to be old timers who have played the games before. I mean, why keep such counter intuitive stuff like THAC0 in the game. It's pretty comical to have people argue that removing such systems would be "dumbing down" the game. For some reason, I can't remember much of the big dungeon in Tales of the Sword Coast. All I remember is cheesing some areas of it with the 5th level spell that was called poison cloud or something. | ||
|
Leporello
United States2845 Posts
That's why I'm glad they're not making a sequel. They don't know how to make RPGs with depth anymore. So glad to see BG1&2 get a nice spit & shine. I'll probably be picking these games up. | ||
|
TheToast
United States4808 Posts
On March 17 2012 00:45 Leporello wrote: Dragon Age: Origins was supposed to be the "spiritual" successor to Baldur's Gate, and look how that turned out. That's why I'm glad they're not making a sequel. They don't know how to make RPGs with depth anymore. So glad to see BG1&2 get a nice spit & shine. I'll probably be picking these games up. Well, the industry has really switched to "action RPGs" so they can cross release them on console. (god knows console kiddies would never play a game based on aDnD second edition rules) Some of these aren't bad; Dungeon Siege II, while way too short, was actually pretty damn fun. DSII really should be considered the archetype of the action RPG genre, it was really simple while still fun and allowing for some good skill choices. The ability to only equip one ability at a time added some depth to choosing skills while still not being overly complicated. It's actually a real shame they ruined DS3, the gameplay system in DS2 was one of the best for an action RPG. The thing with RPGs like Baldur's Gate, IMO you really have to have some interest or knowlege of DnD to fully appreciate them. PC gamer actually released Baldur's Gate for free like 10 years ago, I remember trying it and getting bored and confused. Coming from Diablo 2, I sat bewildered as my character was unable to hit his enemy with the quarter staff, I was like "why is he just waving it around in the air in front of him, for goodness sake JUST HIT THE GUY". It wasn't until after I got into DnD a bit that I really began to appreciate and understand the game. The more I learned about the forgotten realms the more I appreciated the story line and setting as well. I'm actually playing through DA: Origins now and it's not that bad. The only issue I have with the mechanics is it's like the game can't decide whether it wants to be an action RPG or a full RPG. The combat system just seems... clunky. The fact that you have like 8 skills equipped at the same time makes things confusing, and if you don't use them properly you die. Quickly. The party AI is not great, in fact it's pretty terrible, and the "combat tactics" options aren't very useful. (again DS2 got this right, not sure what happened with DA) Not loving the party mechanics either. In BG, your party members have a clearly defined alignment (like lawful good), and if you start doing things that are against that alignment (like killing innocent people) they get angry and leave. Makes sense. But in DA the system is strange. Really Morrigan, your angry because I'm doing too many sidequests? Never have I had a game scold me for exploring too much content. I just took the most evil option to complete a sidequest, what you don't like that? Oh, here have a gold bracelet and forget allllll about it. :/ What was my point? Oh yea, action RPGs can be just as good and fun as full RPGs. But when you try to mix the two like DA did, it doesn't work well from a mechanics standpoint. (still though, the game has Kate Mulgrew and Claudia Black, HOW AWESOME IS THAT!?) | ||
|
RA
Latvia791 Posts
| ||
|
-Archangel-
Croatia7457 Posts
Actually the best part of all of this is that party members would kill each other eventually if they were too different (or try to kill you :D) What DAO did was not use a modified BG system but a modified Kotor system. Kotor done is well, you collected reputation with each party member seperately and if they were different then you (light vs dark) you could turn them to your side. If I remember correctly this was not possible in BG games (changing alignment of party members). But DAO should have copied Kotor even more and left out giving gifts. | ||
| ||
|
|
HomeStory Cup
Korean StarCraft League
HomeStory Cup
Replay Cast
HomeStory Cup
Replay Cast
Replay Cast
Wardi Open
WardiTV Invitational
The PondCast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
