lobotomy42

Soulcalibur IV was a disappointment because it didn't have Team Battle Mode from Soulcalibur II, although the character creator was surprisingly great. My purchase of Soulcalibur V will depend almost entirely on the presence of Team Battle Mode.

Yeah, I played this awhile ago. At it's best, it reminded me of Fallout 2, where you'd have huge cities with lots of interactions between characters and options for solving problems. The Ultra-Luxe quests were the most memorable for me. The faction interaction was also really neat - I liked having lots of options for how the end-game would play out. (I just wish the story amounted to something more than "Pick which side you want to win in a fight over a dam." For an RPG, these are really low stakes.) Fundamentally, though, it was still a frustrating experience because I hate using the Oblivion engine for Fallout combat. It was painfully boring in Fallout 3 and none of the changes Obsidian made improved it. Combat basically amounts to backing up while targeting and shooting while you wait for VATS to refill. Or you can just fire. The only strategy is which guns to carry around with you and how many stimpaks to buy. Also, I *hated* the end-game. (I guess because it was so combat-heavy.)

Re: the DeLorean: Re: Einstein: Overall, while I appreciate the character arc they are setting up for Doc, most of Episode 4, like Episode 2, felt like filler.

I used to read gaming reviews at this one site called...lazy hands? busy fingers? Something like that. Anyway, it's not around anymore, but it had a pretty good forum, as I recall.

Joystiq and Eurogamer. It used be Shacknews and Kotaku, but Kotaku has gotten annoying and Shacknews is near-unusable in its current state.

Game reviews are, as a rule, terrible. There is so much content-free weasel language. Sentences like: "If you love exploring the universe of [brand X], or if you're a huge fan of [Genre] games, then [Game Name] will probably be enjoyable. Other gamers, however, may not find as much here to appreciate." Really? If I like x, and game y is x, I will like game y? And if not, I might not? THANK YOU FOR THIS VALUABLE INSIGHT. There are many things that game writing can or could do that are more interesting than simply enumerating facts about a game and then assigning a number. My favorites include: 1) Experiential - Writing that describes the personal impressions and experiences of the writer. (Beyond the obvious: "This game made me feel like a badass spaceman who killed some cyborgs and saved the galaxy because it is about a badass spaceman who kills cyborgs!" or "This game made me think about Ayn Rand because it is about Ayn Rand.") Things like "This moment of the game made me feel this way. I thought specifically about these other ideas not directly addressed or referenced in the game. Is there a connection between this and this other thing?" 2) Analytical - The kind of thing that could pass as an English term paper. "X represents Y, A is in contrast to B, and one of the major themes is Q." These can get formulaic and pretentious, but if done right, I can tolerate. 3) Historical / Comparative - When done well, these are my favorite, though they are usually terrible. If successful, they put the game in the larger context of gaming and indicate what new ideas are being brought forward and what old ideas are being changed or replaced. Comparing how different survival horror series tackle the problem of generating and sustaining fear, and the effects of various approaches. Or how changes in game mechanics across a series also create narrative or thematic changes. This sort of thing. But these are not even reviews, usually. In conclusion, I give game reviews a 6 out of 10. If you are a fan of reviews, or really into gaming, then you can have fun with them, but otherwise you might want to pass.

I bought this game and played the first hour or so. But there was a lot of talking and not so much playing, which would be fine, except it was the usual generic fantasy game crap filtered through probably a bad translation, so it got irritating. The opening hours just felt really hand-holdy in an oppressive way, so I never got to the actual game bits. :-/

Have you tried re-installing Episode 1? It makes no sense, but I got Episodes 2 and 3 to work only by uninstalling and re-installing Episode 1, and then running them from the Episode 1 launcher.

Just finished this. Wow! Fantastic! Double-plus-good! Possibly the best use of the episodic format to date - the episode was a great payoff for the rather extended setup in episodes 1 and 2. Lots of direct movie references, too. I'm not sure where there is left to go in this series, but I hope they can keep up this momentum. :tup:

:tup:

http://www.joystiq.com/2009/08/14/impressions-alpha-protocol/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjrqeuMgOAw I like the idea of making choices / alliances before a mission, and having that choice affect what information is available to you. Also the description of some choices have consequences that the play can't immediately see. And of course, I generally love Obsidian's story-telling. I guess the challenges here are making sure the action bits live up to the rest of it? All of Obsidian's games thus far have been "tragically flawed" in some way, so I'm hoping this one isn't.

Is it just me, or is this game really, horribly boring? As far as I can tell, every single mission boils down to: 1) Talk to someone 2) Go somewhere and fight a thing 3) Return and get paid Which, for an action game, would be fine. But this is clearly not an action game, since the only "action" you ever perform is pressing A repeatedly until everything dies (and occasionally switching to the other buttons when you want to vary the animation.) There's no real timing or reflexes or combos to perform. Maybe I'm not far enough along. But so far this seems like a cheap cash-in game set in the Dragon Age universe. (And it's not like Origins was *so good* that the franchise can afford a few cash-ins...)

Yes and no. It's not so much that the story is particularly good, so much as the level of interactivity in the story is good. Most characters you meet in the game can, depending on your actions (or inactions) become either your ally OR your enemy by the end of the game. And they're not just units in a battlefield - they all have their own dialogue, motivations, back-story, goals, etc. But if you're not actually invested in the game part of the game, then seeing who acts with or against you is something you'll be less invested in as a player.

Many of the "Tales of" RPGs support co-op. Tales of Symphonia for GameCube (or Wii) was probably the best, but there's also: Tales of the Abyss (PS2) Tales of Symphonia: Dawn of the New World (Wii) Tales of Vesperia (Xbox 360 / PS3) ...and others. Also, it's not out yet, but Dungeon Siege III will support co-op and also have a somewhat-branching storyline. (Or at least, "choices")

Add me too! http://www.trueachievements.com/lobotomy42.htm

For what it's worth, I bought the disc-based version from Amazon.com and didn't have any issues. If there was DRM beyond "Is the CD in the drive?" I didn't notice it.

I finished Gray Matter and put my thoughts in that thread.

Here's my follow-up post, having now completed this. One of my pros (lots of detailed hotspots) turned out to be not true after the first segment of the game, which was a minor letdown. As a result, puzzles were fairly simple throughout the game, since the presence of a hotspot on an item essentially guaranteed it would be used somehow, so the only question became "what do I use this for." On the other hand, the voice acting grew on me over time. In general, I was pleased with the plot and story. It was involving, and the ending made sense, although the reasons behind don't get alluded to until the end of the game. Structurally, it was a bit like a simplified Gabriel Knight 3, with a bunch of mysterious goings-on and a wide cast of characters, each of whom *might* have done it, but probably didn't. The game did end up feeling a little short. My impression is that significant portions were cut for time or budgetary reasons. A lot of events were told through the comic-book cut scenes that didn't necessarily need to be. Unlike others, I was mostly okay with the production values except for when it was obvious that things were missing or cut. In particular, it seemed like the relationships moved a little fast - Sam goes from disliking to feeling protective of Dr. Styles a bit too quickly, and similarly the "Lamb's Club" became a real club seemingly overnight. But these are minor quibbles. So, not earth-shattering or revolutionary, but solid.

I'm sad to say that I'm not enamored with the concept of this game. I get that it's a humorous take on Mech Combat, but...I don't know, it's just not doing it for me. It's not that I have anything against combat-ish games, it's just that there are already so many of them. But I'm glad that Double Fine is trying so many different things at once! I really like this approach to doing games - small, short, and varied in approach. It means that even if Double Fine produces two games I don't much care for, they also produce two games I love! I wish more big studios would diversify their offerings like this.

It's actually an enormous rear-projection screen. Which doesn't help things, I realize, but I definitely don't have the issue with other games :-/

So I finally realized why I haven't been enjoying this game as much as expected. The fake stop-motion animation on the dolls (the way they only have a few frames of walking animation or whatever) gives me a headache to watch when combined with the smooth framerate of other moving things. This is a real shame, because the game is delightful otherwise. But I can't stand to spend time looking around the world and environment any longer than necessary because it's just too damn painful.

Army guys? Where'd they get the idea to use army guys? Are they taking drugs?

I thought that feature was standard in some adventure games? Although thinking about it now, I can't actually name any.

I've only played the first section or so, but this is fantastic. I think the decision to go retro and develop all the graphics, gameplay, etc. in the style of 90s adventure games does a lot to manage my expectations. Since it looks like it's ten years old, nothing about it feels "cheap" or under-budget, even though I might judge it more harshly were I comparing it to other modern games. (This isn't meant as a back-handed compliment - I think this was truly a good stylistic choice.)

Freddie Pharkas was fantastic. It's a shame this didn't do well enough to become its own series.