[2015071]

Persona 4: 9.9/10

Adorable RPG with adorable characters, plot, and a great battle system. AND IT'S FUNNY.

 

[metalsonata]

Pillars of Eternity (2015): 9/10
 
Realistically it probably deserves closer to an 8, but beating this game brought feelings to the surface that I haven't experienced since the glory days of Black Isle RPGs, and for rekindling those feelings that I'd almost forgotten about it deserves a 9. Truly a special RPG--full of flaws perhaps (many of which I touched upon in my original post on the game, and a few of which I did not), but the flaws are easy to forgive when stacked up against everything else that this game nails. Would totally be game for discussing it in more detail if any of you want to, and I'm very, very game for Obsidian throwing more games at us set in this world (in fact, sounds like the game will already be getting an expansion soon). For those curious, I spent almost exactly 60 hours with the game. I believe that I accomplished almost everything that one can in a single playthrough, skipping only a couple side quests (that I'm aware of) simply because I could not find a way to approach them that jived with the personality of the character I was playing (yes, I tend to get into actually roleplaying my characters). 
 
Next up for me:
 
Shadowrun Returns (2013)
 
 

 

[Zojokkeli]

Based on a brief time yesterday with Project CARS, I have to say it looks very promising. Stunning visuals and weather effects, and you can really feel the car you're driving. Driving with a controller was a little so-so, so a wheel and pedals are definitely recommended. The amount and selection of cars was a tad underwhelming, but this is hopefully fixed in the future.

 

[GreenBow]

Since you mentioned Shadowrun Returns and Pillars of Eternity, I looked them up. The first thing I noticed about SR was that it's top down and very small. Those games really don't work for me. I struggle often to like 3rd person, preferring first person over all other types. PoE is the same or similar.
 
Funnily though I got into Dungeon Siege many years ago. I played DS2 completely, and DS3.  DS2 has fairly small characters, but DS3 they are closer up. The vast majority didn't like DS3 but I did. In fact I loved it; but I do not know if I could entirely replay it again. There is a lot of inventory managing, looting, and sorting; and I just don't know if I could do it again. I have played it twice though.
 
Ironic really when I consider I never finished DS1. First play, I went round a corner and met a vast party of enemies and quit. Second time I met a big robot I think. I had passed through the Eastern Swamp, and not taken on a mage as an extra fighter there. I ran out of health potions, and the big robot was hammering me. Stuck again. Unfortunately the path back to a shop for potions and the mage, was blocked by a puzzle of revolving pathways. I could not get the paths to allow me back. Long story but they were designed to only let you go one way.

 

[xkonfuzed]

  Based on a brief time yesterday with Project CARS, I have to say it looks very promising. Stunning visuals and weather effects, and you can really feel the car you're driving. Driving with a controller was a little so-so, so a wheel and pedals are definitely recommended. The amount and selection of cars was a tad underwhelming, but this is hopefully fixed in the future.

Would you say its as good as Gran Turismo 6 in terms of driving physics and realism?

 

[Zojokkeli]

  Would you say its as good as Gran Turismo 6 in terms of driving physics and realism?

 
I would say it's definitely on par, probably even better. 

 

[Rhamnetin]

  Would you say its as good as Gran Turismo 6 in terms of driving physics and realism?

 
Generally speaking, racing simulators designed for PC are more realistic than driving simulators such as Gran Turismo and Forza.  Assetto Corsa is probably the most realistic, and it has a strong variety of content (all different sorts of cars, outstanding simulation).  I will definitely pick up Project C.A.R.S. in the future.

 

[catspaw]

   
Generally speaking, racing simulators designed for PC are more realistic than driving simulators such as Gran Turismo and Forza.  Assetto Corsa is probably the most realistic, and it has a strong variety of content (all different sorts of cars, outstanding simulation).  I will definitely pick up Project C.A.R.S. in the future.

One of my favorite car games of all times was need for speed porshe unleashed (or porshe 2000 as it was known in Spain).
Every race felt so important... so key.
Nowdays car race games feel a bit like hold up to win .

 

[2015071]

One of my favorite car games of all times was need for speed porshe unleashed (or porshe 2000 as it was known in Spain).
Every race felt so important... so key.
Nowdays car race games feel a bit like hold up to win .

My favorite must be either Gran Turismo or Race Driver Grid. The latter one is the most entertaining one. Team organisation is just a perfect cocktail for good user experience.

 

[metalsonata]

  Since you mentioned Shadowrun Returns and Pillars of Eternity, I looked them up. The first thing I noticed about SR was that it's top down and very small. Those games really don't work for me. I struggle often to like 3rd person, preferring first person over all other types. PoE is the same or similar.

 
Any particular reason why that is? The GF is the same way, but she's never really been able to satisfactorily articulate to me why she has an issue with isometric RPGs. Anyways:
 
Shadowrun Returns (2013): 8/10
 
Dammmmnnnn this game was short. I don't think I spent much more than 12 hours with it tops. But in a way, I'm glad it was on the tiny side of things. While many aspects of the game clicked together really nicely, I'm not sure if any of the elements had much inherent longevity. The combat was fun and tactical, but too much of it and it would have gotten old. The writing was great and reminded me why I love the Shadowrun universe so much, but the way it devolves into a 'you're the hero, now save the world' is a bit bleh, and I'm glad they didn't let it drag out unnecessarily. In many ways this game seemed like a proof-of-concept rather than a full-fledged game. It takes care to never repeat itself, displaying all the tricks it seems to have up its sleeves exactly once before moving on and letting you experience something new. In some ways this is disappointing because it feels like there could be a massive game built around the Shadowrun Returns skeleton--all the systems and subsystems are there and ready to be used and reused, and the game's simple engine could easily support a massive, fairly varied campaign. 
 
But there's room in my heart for short RPGs like this, and after the 60 hours spent on Pillars of Eternity, this worked as a nice little break before diving into another big game. And the game seems to have a fairly vibrant community--there are plenty of user-made campaigns out there it looks like, so really, it's as much a toolkit as it is a game. Now, if only they would do away with the terrible obviously-made-for-mobile-devices UI... So, what's next for me? I'm thinking:
 
Divine Divinity (2002)

 
This is a game I've played and enjoyed, but never beat (or even gotten that far in). I've heard it can be a long and trying experience--wish me luck.

 

[Za Warudo]

Valkryia Chronicles - I love tactical RPGs like Tactics Ogre and Shining Force, so this right up my alley.  The 3rd person shooter perspective is a refreshing twist.  I wish the map view offered more of a 3D view of the field to better plan your moves instead of having to select a character only to realize the terrain hindered what you wanted to do.  Also some of the levels are somewhat poorly designed as being extremely easy if you use a certain strategy or extremely hard if you approach it the conventional way.

 

[Rhamnetin]

   
Any particular reason why that is? The GF is the same way, but she's never really been able to satisfactorily articulate to me why she has an issue with isometric RPGs. 

 
I also don't prefer that view.  It's less immersive to me; it's meant to emulate the view you'd get when playing a pen and paper RPG but I don't want that, I want to be in the protagonist's shoes, I want to be a part of the environment (not above it like a god), and I want to look characters in the eye when talking to them.
 
I can still deal with isometric, although what really grinds my gears is 2.5D isometric modern RPGs.  2.5D was only used initially because 3D graphics couldn't achieve the details that Interplay/Black Isle Studios and BioWare wanted to achieve.  It was meant to emulate 3D, it's pseudo-3D.  Now, 3D graphics are more than capable, so there is no good reason for pseudo-3D anymore as we can have the real thing instead.

 

[metalsonata]

   
I also don't prefer that view.  It's less immersive to me; it's meant to emulate the view you'd get when playing a pen and paper RPG but I don't want that, I want to be in the protagonist's shoes, I want to be a part of the environment (not above it like a god), and I want to look characters in the eye when talking to them.
 
I can still deal with isometric, although what really grinds my gears is 2.5D isometric modern RPGs.  2.5D was only used initially because 3D graphics couldn't achieve the details that Interplay/Black Isle Studios and BioWare wanted to achieve.  It was meant to emulate 3D, it's pseudo-3D.  Now, 3D graphics are more than capable, so there is no good reason for pseudo-3D anymore as we can have the real thing instead.

Interesting--I talked with the GF about it again tonight and she brought up basically the same points that you did. For me however, I find that first-person perspective in RPGs often discourages me from being really immersed in the game, as it leaves little to the imagination, puts everything that feels 'wrong' (using Skyrim as an example: the floaty combat and NPC interaction) up close and personal, and just generally doesn't do my suspension of disbelief any favors. (Of course, there are some exceptions--I generally have a good time with first-person games where atmosphere is key.) Having played tabletop RPGs growing up and having had experience with them before I really got into computer role-playing might have something to do with this--playing a good tabletop game with a good group of storytellers is about as immersive as things get for me, akin to reading an excellent novel, albeit it one I can interact with. (Perhaps like a dream?) Isometric perspectives reinforce the idea in my mind that what I'm really playing is, to some degree, a simulator of a tabletop game, and if the game mechanics are solid and the writing is good, my imagination takes care of the rest. For me, that element of imagination is missing from a lot of modern RPGs, and I personally find its absence or near-absence to be detrimental. I've walked the streets of Baldur's Gate, but I've only played a game that took place in a fictional country called Skyrim.
 
On the note of 2D vs. 3D--I don't see your argument. Not every game is better in 3D. Technically maybe, but aesthetically no (granted, this is an entirely subjective point). Nevermind the practical angle of the game development process and the differences in cost, staff time, and staff expertise in making a 2D game vs. a 3D one.  

 

[Rhamnetin]

  Interesting--I talked with the GF about it again tonight and she brought up basically the same points that you did. For me however, I find that first-person perspective in RPGs often discourages me from being really immersed in the game, as it leaves little to the imagination, puts everything that feels 'wrong' (using Skyrim as an example: the floaty combat and NPC interaction) up close and personal, and just generally doesn't do my suspension of disbelief any favors. (Of course, there are some exceptions--I generally have a good time with first-person games where atmosphere is key.) Having played tabletop RPGs growing up and having had experience with them before I really got into computer role-playing might have something to do with this--playing a good tabletop game with a good group of storytellers is about as immersive as things get for me, akin to reading an excellent novel, albeit it one I can interact with. (Perhaps like a dream?) Isometric perspectives reinforce the idea in my mind that what I'm really playing is, to some degree, a simulator of a tabletop game, and if the game mechanics are solid and the writing is good, my imagination takes care of the rest. For me, that element of imagination is missing from a lot of modern RPGs, and I personally find its absence or near-absence to be detrimental. I've walked the streets of Baldur's Gate, but I've only played a game that took place in a fictional country called Skyrim.
 
On the note of 2D vs. 3D--I don't see your argument. Not every game is better in 3D. Technically maybe, but aesthetically no (granted, this is an entirely subjective point). Nevermind the practical angle of the game development process and the differences in cost, staff time, and staff expertise in making a 2D game vs. a 3D one.  

 
I don't demand first person in RPGs either, I generally prefer third person, though I do use an isometric view in pause-and-play RPGs or turn-based just for tactical reasons.  
 
When bringing up 2D I was specifically referencing isometric 2.5D, like Pillars of Eternity and Torment: Tides of Numenera.  Of course, among all 2D games there are indeed many with a unique aesthetic that would be absent if made in 3D.  But games such as these two RPGs are really just pseudo-3D like I said, instead of the real thing.  I don't believe they were made this way for aesthetic purposes, since they both go for a "realistic" 2.5D look anyway.  They were made this way to capitalize on nostalgia and perhaps save on costs at the same time, and because people don't realize that this type of 2.5D was only ever used initially because 3D graphics were not advanced enough at the time (1990s).

 

[GreenBow]

  Interesting--I talked with the GF about it again tonight and she brought up basically the same points that you did. For me however, I find that first-person perspective in RPGs often discourages me from being really immersed in the game, as it leaves little to the imagination, puts everything that feels 'wrong' (using Skyrim as an example: the floaty combat and NPC interaction) up close and personal, and just generally doesn't do my suspension of disbelief any favors. (Of course, there are some exceptions--I generally have a good time with first-person games where atmosphere is key.) Having played tabletop RPGs growing up and having had experience with them before I really got into computer role-playing might have something to do with this--playing a good tabletop game with a good group of storytellers is about as immersive as things get for me, akin to reading an excellent novel, albeit it one I can interact with. (Perhaps like a dream?) Isometric perspectives reinforce the idea in my mind that what I'm really playing is, to some degree, a simulator of a tabletop game, and if the game mechanics are solid and the writing is good, my imagination takes care of the rest. For me, that element of imagination is missing from a lot of modern RPGs, and I personally find it to be detrimental. I've walked the streets of Baldur's Gate, but I've only played a game that took place in a fictional country called Skyrim.
 
On the note of 2D vs. 3D--I don't see your argument. Not every game is better in 3D. Technically maybe, but aesthetically no (granted, this is an entirely subjective point). Nevermind the practical angle of the game development process and the differences in cost, staff time, and staff expertise in making a 2D game vs. a 3D one.  

Well officially Skyrim has two modes and can be played third person. I prefer first and only every now and again look at it in 3rd person, then switch straight back. However I also do not understand why you take on Skyrim's combat as floaty. I am 160 hours into Skyrim and using the bow and one handed, find it good combat.
 
It's hard to pinpoint why I don't like top down view. It's more when I see a game in it, I move on. I do understand the fun of top down games though to a very specific extent. I played and really enjoyed Ground Control many years ago. I also played Rome: Total War. However both these games allow the player to get down to the ground and have a look around. Whereas you need to zoom out to be able to view the battlefield and strategy so it worked.
 
In a game where you are constantly zoomed out irritates me because I want to see the sets. (As Rhamnetin pointed out.) Otherwise some of the sci-fi, or magic, or medieval aspect, of the world is lost. It's a bit like having a game without any modern graphics, if you can't see the sets clearly close up. Therefor to me the type of game where you are constantly fixed at zoomed out only seems like 5/6 game. 1/3 story, 1/3 action, 1/6 graphics. (Strangely the overall effect feels like only half a game.)
 
I am not anti these games and am playing Halo: Spartan Assault. However that's only out of desperation for some Halo universe because I refuse to be subjugated and buy an X-Box.. It's a lot of fun though, but undeniably nothing like a Halo 1st person, for immersion and quality.
 
Really I don't understand why anyone would question a person's view that 1st or 3rd are better. The reasons are obvious. Constantly zoomed out are only good if tactically you need to be. Otherwise it's just laziness on behalf of the developer. These games feel like playing chess rather than a modern game.