CaptainFish

I agree that the combat in this game doesn't stand up to the games it's most commonly compared to (God of War, DMC3, even Zelda, since that is a different style of combat). My most obvious issue was the camera being zoomed in far too tight for crowd control, especially when lock on is enabled. I played on Apocalyptic as well, so not using lock on was something I had to learn early on to avoid being murdered by some off screen enemy. There is also the way dodges are just for dodging, and don't really give you invincibility frames. If you're still in the attack animation you'll take damage. Once you get more weapons, mods and upgrades, it becomes less of an issue as you can just scythe or fist pound everyone around you to death in seconds, but I definitely had a rough first 8 hours.

Confirmed, Nolan North + Kristen Bell = Maximum Smarm.

I can't wait to start playing this once it unlocks on steam. I guess the AC team realized they don't want to deal with DLC on PCs so they just delay AC until it's all out. I don't mind one bit.

It's described as multiplayer only, although I did see a youtube video of the mod that was single player. Here it is. Looking at the description it says the allied troops have unique weapons and abilities. I wonder if that's a MNC style special powers thing, or a "this guy can punch and run fast, but this guy has grenades" thing. Edit: I checked the moddb page for Dino D-Day and according to a writer and artist:

I agree with the two preceding suggestions. Update drivers, see if you can find a Bink video test, or support. Hopefully the solution isn't getting a new sound card. Yes. It's very close to how he played Joker in Batman AA. The only other voice actor whose name I recognize is Phil LaMarr as Vulgrim.

I liked those DLC bits, they had a little bit more difficulty because of the notoriety being defaulted to high, which I enjoyed. I also vaguely remember them needing stealth to a higher degree than most of the regular game. It's been a while. Maybe I'm just thinking of the Bonfire of the Vanities, I played the PC version where both memories were slotted in properly on my first playthrough.

I feel like a dick for saying this, but I'm not willing to try it for 20 bucks. From the title and description I was really interested in checking it out, but their implementation of those ideas is so dry. A game that seems to be 80% day of defeat with some melee classes and a tanks doesn't seem like it'll have staying power for an all multiplayer game. It also doesn't look all that fun, unless you like using melee in source games, or dying even more often in DoD. If someone tries it and has nice things to say about it, I'll think about checking it out.

I beat Dead Space 2 yesterday. I couldn't find any threads, so I guess it wasn't much of a discussion point. I thought it was awesome. I played it on PC just like the first one. First of all, all the swimmy mouse controls are fixed. The first game always felt a bit like aiming in molasses, but here it's sharp. The kenesis ability is also a lot faster. No more waiting for the beam to retract before carrying on. It's a good thing too, because the enemies are just that much snappier. The best example are those long tailed two armed necromorphs, who can leap and rush you much more effectively than in the original. All the enemies act quickly, which is great, because the first game could be cheesed to some extent by giving the enemies the run around. All in all the combat feels like the first one, but tighter, with some enemy varieties that force you to use different weapons and abilities. There are a lot of nice interface/usability changes. The weapon select plus now shows total ammo for each weapon. Stasis now has a slow recharge, and when empty, the stasis button will use a module to get you to full, rather than just failing to fire. Inventory and armor upgrades for Isaac are permanent upon purchase of a new suit, and older models are selectable for cosmetic choice. Save for the first real suit, all models have a passive ability as well. Benches allow for a respec for 5000 credits, letting you remove all nodes from a weapon for reuse (or reorganization). I like what they've done with the story and with Isaac's character. He's no longer a silent protagonist. He reacts to every silly order or turn of events, and has a few moments where his face is visible for emoting. I thought this was a great improvement over the silent lapdog nature of Isaac in 1. I wish there was even more dialogue for combat situations, but I realize that's a thin line to tread. Much like the first game, there isn't that much plot in every area. Most of what is going on is depicted through logs and conversations. It starts off with your character in the dark and just trying to survive, but you never get a scene that just lays out every fact, and how every faction is involved. They give you pretty much the bare minimum number of facts to know what is going on. You're very much focused on your survival and the objectives at hand, which I like. Anyhoo, I liked it, and I'm gonna play it again to try out more weapons.

Wait, Brain Blessed is in this? Sold.

I was wondering if Rivalry was just a higher chance of leaving. I'm glad to hear it just represents a strong relationship in another direction.

I'm probably caught up on his definitions, but academic discussions like this require an agreed upon set in order to proceed. Just to be clear I don't think that the categories of kitsch and sublime art shouldn't exist or be defined, I just think the entire spectrum of art is more than just 2 points. As for whether interactivity can preclude sublime art, I think not. Like I said before, Chess and Go fit Moriarty's ideal of sublime art in that they evoke the inexpressible, and are always relevant. Especially Go with it's ideas of life/death and territory forming a game that evolves from sparse points into a final board that is a time-line of the conflict. Both games represent ideas through their mechanics alone that are universal IMO. As for video games, I don't know which ones are sublime. Is Indiana Jones for the Atari 2600 Art? Is Lemmings Art? Is EVE Online Art? There have been games that I found fascinating, like Planetfall in it's use of a companion in an interactive medium or Braid in it's framing of it's mechanics. I know fascination does not equal Art, but those are places where mechanics are interesting, not the trappings borrowed from other genres. I feel like we're too close to determine whether a game is high art, though. There are examples of art in the past that was considered populous at the time, that is currently regarded as high art in hindsight. Shakespeare is the most obvious example. Charles Dickens work was also ubiquitous at the time and some of his serials were charged with emotion. Those works are now considered literature, which is Art, right? I know Moriarty started his talk by stating that games have been around forever, but not in this form. I also disagree that all games prior to VGs aren't art. I feel like some distance in time will be needed before we settle this debate. If it ever gets settled at all. Whether or not it's happened already, I do believe it's possible for Video Games to be art at some point in time.

My point isn't that Kitsch is any worse than he said it is, it's that any two definitions of art are bound to be lacking. He describes Kitsch as: "One: Kitsch depicts objects or themes that are highly charged with stock emotions. Two: The objects or themes depicted by kitsch are instantly and effortlessly identifiable. Three: Kitsch does not substantially enrich our associations relating to the depicted objects or themes." It's about easily relatable ideas with clearly defined emotional responses, and it's consumption doesn't invoke any new insights about those ideas. I think there is a gulf between that description and his description of sublime art. If you found an example that flipped one of the kitsch switches from on to off, Moriarty wouldn't call that sublime. It's not as simple as that. And that's my point. The end point I get from Moriarty's talk is: there are two types of art, I've defined them and my definitions are gospel. I just keep picturing him at an art gallery, going up to each piece and artist and putting a tick in the sublime or kitsch column and it's an incredibly absurd idea.

Beat Mafia II last night. I enjoyed it. The shooting felt nice and all the weapons were effective the whole way through. The story was alright, although I was more in it because of an affinity to the characters. I loved the checkpointing. Never having to drive to a place again because I got gunned down was a relief. I didn't really miss the open world side mission stuff. I think I'm more interested in doing that stuff in worlds with more unique mechanics like Red Faction: Guerrilla and Just Cause 2.

I was just being sarcastic in reference to Ebert saying ""As long as there is a great movie unseen or a great book unread, I will continue to be unable to find the time to play video games." He later conceded the point that games can have worth, but that line definitely sounded like games aren't worth his time. Especially when he has great movies like Drive Angry to review. (I know it's his job, it's just a joke.) I do understand and agree with some of his points, but I just think that Brian's thesis depends on there being two levels of art. Sublime and kitsch. Complete transcendental universal art and novelties for the masses. It's a great way to frame an argument, because if something doesn't meet those high standards, it's placed in the lowest rung automatically. It's why mathematicians love to prove by contradiction. He doesn't even make room for art that is made in response to certain cultural/political movements of a specific time (semi-related to Squid Division's most recent post). It reminds me of that discussion of difficulty versus accessibility in art in the icarus thread; if a book requires you to have historical context to read it, it isn't sublime according to Moriarty. People have been making the high/low art distinction for a long time, but I'm not sure of the benefits. It usually seems to be a way to remove the low, rather than elevate the high. I'm not totally against some classification either. I think there are benefits to establishing literary canon, because it seeks to identify powerful and culturally significant works, allowing readers to experience the techniques, styles and motifs that make them unique. This doesn't mean that all works outside of those reading lists are kitsch, and definitely doesn't mean that they lose the status of being art.

Wow, I didn't realize that this whole debate started with Ebert taking a dump on the value of video games as a use of time. I guess it's a good thing he brought art into, otherwise GDC talks would discuss whether or not you stop playing games forever because there are great books to read. Anyhoo, I guess the debate is over. There's art and Art. Art is binary. There's no room for subjectivity. It's the environment in which the art/Art is made that determines whether it's a 0 or a 1. Games are a product so they'll always be a 0. Ebert wins. Never play a game again. I'd say that describes Chess and Go to a tee. And don't talk to me about the wisdom of the ages, morality has changed a great deal over the years, and so can definitions of art.

I'm watching the live GB quick look, and the Diamond thing keeps coming up. It seems generally hard hearted, but not all that consistent.

Did you play the Subsistence version* with the new camera? I remember a lot of people having issues with the gameplay because of how the original camera worked. It's definitely a very different game with a different style of play, but I really took to creeping through the grass in camo. It was also fairly easy to just not stealth and kill everyone, once you had a few weapons. *Tanu, that version had both MSX Metal gears in it.

I remember having to kill infinity Metal Gears on the hardest difficulty on the PS2. It was a lot of chaff and stingers and luck. Not sure if that difficulty is the same as in substance. Anyhoo, I never played Substance and was bummed out about it, so I'm kinda glad to hear that it isn't a bunch of crucial content. I think you'll really enjoy MGS3 though, it's my favorite of the series. There's something about the style and some of the trappings that make it pop.

How long was it? I played, but never finished that game when it was new and I've been thinking of snapping into it.

Just beat Dragon Age: Origins after the DA2 demo got me psyched to play more Dragon Age. According to steam I went from 34 hours to 118, which represented going from my first army recruitment (Mage Circle) to the end game. I tend to load a lot so my actual game time was more like 90 hours. I really liked the tendency for tough choices to be made, especially in the end game where they took me by surprise in parts. I definitely got to the point where I had enough spells between Wynne and Morrigan to just roll any encounter, although switching one for Shale or Leliana was viable as well. I think the game should allow for respecing, because now looking back I realize what spells are kind of useless without combinations, and which ones are crucial for crowd control. The camera kinda bugged me, I wish you could just scroll around the whole battlefield rather than being confined to a proximity around your dudes. Especially when so many fights depend on archers at long range where you can't see them unless you're in 3rd person view. This was especially troubling when said archers would perform scattershot constantly, interrupting your attempts to cast talents. While I liked the combat, I definitely started to get the feel of playing a D&D game where the DM attempts to be more diabolical every encounter, while your options remain basically the same. Almost every travelling encounter begins with your enemies in interesting tactical positions while your team is all clustered up. It makes me long for games like Shining Force or Front Mission 4 (which I'm currently playing) where more equal forces match off and positioning and use of terrain and spells is relevant for both sides. Almost every fight just boiled down to getting my mages in place to freeze, petrify, paralyze, sleep or knock down groups of enemies to keep my rogue and warrior from being overrun. I know it sounds like a wide variety of options, but they all basically end up being the same effect, tied to different cooldown timers. Fighting elite enemies was particularly hairy when the spells you've been counting on for control simply don't work on account of bad rolls. This eventually leads to me running my healer away from the elite, only to be 'hit' by a sword swing that doesn't actually touch her character model and die. The latency of some of the spells and talents made them less fun to use (not the ones with casting bars, but just the inherent animations). Shale's rock throw is a good example, where there is a long wind up to an area attack with friendly fire, making it much harder to use than similar faster casting spells like fireball. The delay also makes the little targeting areas more useful as a guide than an absolute target system. I appreciate requiring a bit more finesse for aiming your spells, but when you fail because of it it can be a bummer. Anyhoo I liked the story stuff, so I'll probably do the Awakening expansion, eventually.

Hell let's talk about games like Amnesia, Magicka, Torchlight, Minecraft and Trine. Capcom released 2 of their 3 big games last year on the PC, and even Ubisoft hasn't stopped making Assassin's Creed games for it, even if they are delayed. There are games all across the indie-to-big publisher spectrum that thrive on the PC, especially the unique ones. THQ's lack of belief in the platform is in direct opposition to their strong PC only franchises. It's troubling.

I dunno, it worked for Deathspank. I can see the addition of more ranged attacks making barriers more useful. I love elemental+rock+barrier for crowd control, but I found the basic barriers a bit useless. Also, apparently there's a machine gun in the vanilla game that I haven't seen because I didn't save all the houses in that one town. That Battlefield Bad Company style poster at the end was hilarious. Rodi are you talking about the fight in the ruins area after the druids? There I used fire+3rock+barrier to slow the approach of new dudes, and grease Magick and fire to do damage. When the druids show up, use fire+barrier and water+barrier on self, and try to kill the druids quickly. My mainstay offensive spell is steam+lightning (full bar, more steam increases range, I think more lightning increases damage) ice+arcane is pretty good too as it penetrates enemies. Also, the druid staff lets you summon a tree for support, it might be a good idea to grab that to help with the crowds. Later in the game I used a lot more water and cold to freeze enemies in their tracks, it might be a good idea once the druids cast rain. Cold is good for crowd control in general, but once enemies are frozen a charged rock ball will do tons of damage. A 5water spell bar area cast around you does a great job of just clearing enemies away from you.

Has anyone tried out this indie platformer? I just saw the release on steam, and it seems like Lost Vikings-esque platforming in a black light forest.

Yeah I'm with Orvidos on this one. If they want to make a game with a good guy character then they need to commit. I didn't mind San Andreas or Vice City and how they dealt with plot. CJ was a clear example of a character from a movie like Juice, and he managed to keep his code about drugs and protecting the neighbourhood, while doing all sorts of stuff. Some of the far out stuff was weird (like the airport spy stuff), but all his dealings in his neighbourhood with those that effected it were consistent. Tommy Vercetti (I think that was his name, it's been a while) was a goodfella criminal, looking to get ahead. The Scarface stuff that happens late game isn't completely out of his character. Niko is introduced with this very specific goal, and he seems to be distracted from it far too much. I did like the stuff that dealt with a new immigrant's view on the American dream. But then Rockstar has to make you experience all of their varied characters, and even the ones Niko finds reprehensible are still dealt with on the regular. For a man with such a serious goal, you'd figure he'd get to the point. It's not even that I hate all the interactions, it just tends to drag, and undercuts the type of character they're trying to sell. I thought the gameplay wasn't that great either, so I kinda just stopped. IMO Saint's Row controlled nicer, and Just Cause 2 is way more fun for just basic carnage. Maybe Rockstar needs to start dividing their single player campaigns over several characters. Deliver a focused driven narrative over a few hours from different perspectives. Since they're not doing the "buy the entire city" stuff they did in Vice City and San Andreas, it doesn't need that long progression. Then again Red Dead was the same formula and I haven't heard that many complaints.

Two Thrones did really bring that series home in a great way. It's a shame that some people didn't get to it after Warrior Within. I especially loved the combat dichotomy of regular prince being mostly stealth take downs, while the dark prince had the more heavy fighting. He also had stronger mechanics with that swallowtail that made it fun. POP will definitely be more about platforming than combat, but Two Thrones dealt with that aspect much better than Warrior Within, where the solution was just add more combat and more weapons to pick up.