Rate the video games you're currently playing
Aug 25, 2015 at 8:13 AM Post #5,191 of 6,937
  Probably 2 as the latter has more content from what I remember. Also (slightly) better graphics.

I picked 1st after all. Just as I remember it, simple shooting, but ok for a bit of casual shooting.
5/10
 
Aug 31, 2015 at 2:29 PM Post #5,192 of 6,937
  I picked 1st after all. Just as I remember it, simple shooting, but ok for a bit of casual shooting.
5/10


I hope you like it a lot. If you get bored though, don't be worried about letting it go and move onto to BL2.
 
I was about 25 hours into BL1 and there was something I couldn't put my finger on. Then at 40 hours I understood, that I was finding it boring. There were too many barriers getting from one place to the next. In car, jump out, run, find another car, jump out, run. Kill. Do it all again getting back for reward. Just to get sent back again in next mission. It wasn't boring in the missions; it was in the execution, because it ran me down.
 
This was after have my head clean blown off by BL2. I figured all the issues with BL1 were fixed for BL2. BL1 also has a 'field of view' issue and there is a quick fix for it.
 
However I have read it the other way around, meaning some that played BL1 first found BL2 boring. For me though BL2 flowed. Right from the very start in the blue ice when Claptrap arrived, I loved it. It was fractionally slow just after that when you meet the sheriff dude. For me, once those first few missions got going it was all good from then in.
 
P.S. The zombie DLC was a good one in BL1.
 
Sep 1, 2015 at 4:40 AM Post #5,193 of 6,937
I actually stopped playing BL for a while (Playing Dark Souls 1 again). 
Yesterday I managed to kill a very good invader who tried to kill us, and my build was not even done yet... then I died to a simple enemy :D.
 
So for now I take a break from BL (its mostly a shoot em up anyway).
 
Sep 1, 2015 at 5:05 AM Post #5,194 of 6,937
Rocket League:
 
Difficult to rate accurately since the gameplay and mechanics are solid - 9/10
I think the in-game camera settings could be a bit more versatile - 7/10
Frequent laggy servers make 1 in 20 online games unplayable - can't really rate this, since it's not a problem with the game but poor server optimization. 
 
Overall I think I'd give it a solid 8/10 since it's all I can think about playing and has cost me quite a few hours of sleep the past few days. 
 
Sep 1, 2015 at 12:11 PM Post #5,195 of 6,937
.
Yeah I agree two is better than one in a little larger however by now they're both so cheap you could probably pick them both up for pennies on the dollar
 
Sep 4, 2015 at 9:35 PM Post #5,199 of 6,937
  GTA 5-Well worth the money spent have played through the bulk of the game on both the PS4 and xbox 360.Currently trying to get gold rating on as many missions as I can.
For a numeric value I will give it a 9.

Yeah I really have enjoyed GTA 5 as well..
 
Sep 14, 2015 at 9:22 PM Post #5,201 of 6,937
Played Zombie Army Trilogy campaign. It's basically Nazi Zombie Army 1, 2, and 3.
 
I already own ZNA 1 and 2. Therefor it was NZA 3 to me. They didn't release NZA 3 separately, but I love the NZA games, so I had to have it.
 
Was a little disappointed by the third campaign but it was OK. Am playing online co-op, jumping into other's campaigns, which is always good. Plus it has solo and co-op hoarde mode. Horde mode gets better as you 'git gud', and learn the maps and where the ammo is.
 
Difficult to rate with me being forced to rebuy the first two games, albeit revamped. I think of it this way. I have four games in my favourites on Steam, of about ninety games. NZA 1 and 2 are two of them.
 
Sep 15, 2015 at 12:28 PM Post #5,203 of 6,937
Have had zero time for games in the last few months, which means that I've been stuck partway through various games that I shall probably have to restart, particularly The Witcher III. That said, getting slightly more time recently, and I picked up Metal Gear Solid V. Guess Witcher III and a few other excellent games will have to wait quite a bit longer, because I'm having the time of my life with MGSV, and I've only just begun with it. Not a fan of some aspects of the game (the frequently cringe-worthy script, the tonal whiplash, and some pretty questionable characterization and character-design--granted, this is a MGS game, so these points go with the territory), but the excellent sandbox gameplay with all its ridiculous subsystems that work in impressive harmony that few, if any, other open-world games have managed is just too good to ignore. And it's exactly where I wanted the series to go after MGSIII. That said, worried about a few design choices in this game that I think might lessen my enjoyment of it (perhaps significantly so) as the game continues:
 
1. I'm afraid that the missions and side-ops will get too repetitive. The adaptive AI, I'm hoping, will help with this a bit, as will the insanely detailed and massive tech tree, but it's still a concern for me.
2. Why does Snake almost never talk during cut-scenes? His evolution as a character is the primary reason I'm playing this game, beyond the excellent gameplay. And why are the cassette tapes far more important, plot-wise and character-development wise, than the cutscenes? Really hard to be at my best stealth game when I've got to be listening to audio tapes during missions just to remain caught up on the story.
3. The game's cover system and climbing 'system' are both  *terrible.* These aspects of gameplay needed a lot more time in the oven.
4. Why are missions walled in? I hate this. What's the point of an open-world, sand-boxy game where you can fail missions by simply trying to exercise maximum creativity?
5. And speaking of that open world, it sure is pretty, but also way too empty, and far less open that you might initially think, unfortunately. Ditto with Mother Base, which feels like a wasted concept, at least insofar as its physical presence that you can explore in the game is concerned. I also wish there was more to discover, beyond just animals to balloon and plants and diamonds to collect.
 
Ah well, hopefully I'll have enough time to actually finish this game, then get around to actually finishing Grand Theft Auto V and The Witcher III...
 
Sep 15, 2015 at 1:27 PM Post #5,204 of 6,937
  Have had zero time for games in the last few months, which means that I've been stuck partway through various games that I shall probably have to restart, particularly The Witcher III. That said, getting slightly more time recently, and I picked up Metal Gear Solid V. Guess Witcher III and a few other excellent games will have to wait quite a bit longer, because I'm having the time of my life with MGSV, and I've only just begun with it. Not a fan of some aspects of the game (the frequently cringe-worthy script, the tonal whiplash, and some pretty questionable characterization and character-design--granted, this is a MGS game, so these points go with the territory), but the excellent sandbox gameplay with all its ridiculous subsystems that work in impressive harmony that few, if any, other open-world games have managed is just too good to ignore. And it's exactly where I wanted the series to go after MGSIII. That said, worried about a few design choices in this game that I think might lessen my enjoyment of it (perhaps significantly so) as the game continues:
 
1. I'm afraid that the missions and side-ops will get too repetitive. The adaptive AI, I'm hoping, will help with this a bit, as will the insanely detailed and massive tech tree, but it's still a concern for me.
2. Why does Snake almost never talk during cut-scenes? His evolution as a character is the primary reason I'm playing this game, beyond the excellent gameplay. And why are the cassette tapes far more important, plot-wise and character-development wise, than the cutscenes? Really hard to be at my best stealth game when I've got to be listening to audio tapes during missions just to remain caught up on the story.
3. The game's cover system and climbing 'system' are both  *terrible.* These aspects of gameplay needed a lot more time in the oven.
4. Why are missions walled in? I hate this. What's the point of an open-world, sand-boxy game where you can fail missions by simply trying to exercise maximum creativity?
5. And speaking of that open world, it sure is pretty, but also way too empty, and far less open that you might initially think, unfortunately. Ditto with Mother Base, which feels like a wasted concept, at least insofar as its physical presence that you can explore in the game is concerned. I also wish there was more to discover, beyond just animals to balloon and plants and diamonds to collect.
 
Ah well, hopefully I'll have enough time to actually finish this game, then get around to actually finishing Grand Theft Auto V and The Witcher III...

 
I feel the need to comment on this post since I agree with a lot of it.
 
1. They got repetitive pretty quickly for me.  I love the adaptive AI but that can only do so much, plus the level/world itself gets rather boring since it lacks in variety.  It's like Takistan from ArmA 2: Operation Arrowhead, but populated entirely by military forces.  Whenever I make ArmA missions I make sure to add some variety to avoid this type of thing.
 
2. Budget.  They couldn't afford to give Keifer Sutherland as many lines as David Hayter.  Kojima's obsession with Hollywood became his undoing here.  It's almost like Snake is a silent protagonist now.
 
3. They aren't the best but I've encountered much worse.
 
4. Agreed.  I worried the game would end up being like this due to the console heritage of the franchise, and it did.  Still, it isn't as bad as I thought it might be in this regard.
 
5. Absolutely, it's like I said before.  It's just a very basic sandbox video game map with enemy soldiers everywhere, not a living breathing virtual world like Bethesda games.  These missed opportunities are expected however.
 
Sep 15, 2015 at 2:04 PM Post #5,205 of 6,937
   
I feel the need to comment on this post since I agree with a lot of it.
 
1. They got repetitive pretty quickly for me.  I love the adaptive AI but that can only do so much, plus the level/world itself gets rather boring since it lacks in variety.  It's like Takistan from ArmA 2: Operation Arrowhead, but populated entirely by military forces.  Whenever I make ArmA missions I make sure to add some variety to avoid this type of thing.
 
2. Budget.  They couldn't afford to give Keifer Sutherland as many lines as David Hayter.  Kojima's obsession with Hollywood became his undoing here.  It's almost like Snake is a silent protagonist now.
 
3. They aren't the best but I've encountered much worse.
 
4. Agreed.  I worried the game would end up being like this due to the console heritage of the franchise, and it did.  Still, it isn't as bad as I thought it might be in this regard.
 
5. Absolutely, it's like I said before.  It's just a very basic sandbox video game map with enemy soldiers everywhere, not a living breathing virtual world like Bethesda games.  These missed opportunities are expected however.

 
Just about the only disagreement I have with you is that I still prefer MGSV's open world to Bethesda's. Perhaps I'm unfair to or biased against Bethesda, but I find their games these days to just be very, very frustrating. I can't get more than several hours into them before I'm sick of them. Their worlds are big and pretty, but I feel like they're extremely shallow, subject to a lot of copy-pasting and busy-work, and marred by half-baked game design, unsatisfactory gameplay, really dumb glitches, and unbalanced progression. The few dungeons I made it through in Skyrim all felt exactly the same to me, and it wasn't long before I was missing the more detailed character progression of past Bethesda games. I'm still afraid to seriously try out their take on Fallout, given that the original Fallouts number among my favorite games of all time, and I'm worried that Bethesda's Fallout will just be a re-skinned Elder Scrolls game. (I haven't played Fallout: New Vegas yet, though I hear I'd probably appreciate it a lot. Which makes sense, given that it's an Obsidian Entertainment game, and they're one of my favorites.) I feel like open-world game design has been done a lot better, particularly by The Witcher III--by no means a perfect game, but I deeply appreciate how its open world informs its story, and vice versa, something which I think has always been lacking in the Elder Scrolls.
 
That said, Fallout 4 is looking pretty good by my standards. It just might be the first Bethesda Fallout that I pick up and really play. And at some point I'd like to try and set  aside my complaints as best as I can and give stuff like Skyrim and Oblivion and Fallout 3 more of a chance. I feel like if approach them with a really strict role-playing character concept in mind I might be able to enjoy them, even if it means ignoring wide swathes of the games. My recent play-through of Pillars of Eternity reminded me how much more fun it is to play a CRPG as if it were a tabletop RPG than as if it were a CRPG, an approach I've not taken to Bethesda's work, perhaps because of how much more 'free-form' they are. Games like Pillars of Eternity (and The Witcher III) take a lot more time to set up their worlds, cultures, politics, and general thrust of current events than The Elder Scrolls ever has, as a result of which it's a lot easier to get into a character and really play it. (I feel like this is something Bioware does a good job of as well, even if they have yet to figure out how to make moral choices feel organic and not systematic.) I might literally have to put on my very dusty Dungeons & Dragons DM cap and do a little bit of character/world-building myself, just in order to play Skyrim and enjoy it. Hopefully it works!
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top