[GreenBow]

OK I might check out gameplay of RE7, however I have no confidence in it. Every time I buy an RE game I feel like I have wasted my money and say no RE games. Then I buy another.
 
I actually forgot to mention I not only played RE5 and 6. I played RE4 (HD) with it's stupid controls. Though RE4 (HD) was OK but old looking when I played. Plus I played RE Revelations, on the recommendation everyone said it goes back to RE roots. It was average at best and a nightmare to play. I also bought RE Revelations 2 and gave up because it stutters every few seconds.
 
Just a waste of money.

 

[kova4a]

  OK I might check out gameplay of RE7, however I have no confidence in it. Every time I buy an RE game I feel like I have wasted my money and say no RE games. Then I buy another.
 
I actually forgot to mention I not only played RE5 and 6. I played RE4 (HD) with it's stupid controls. Though RE4 (HD) was OK but old looking when I played. Plus I played RE Revelations, on the recommendation everyone said it goes back to RE roots. It was average at best and a nightmare to play. I also bought RE Revelations 2 and gave up because it stutters every few seconds.
 
Just a waste of money.

Well, RE7 is no masterpiece but it's pretty decent. It is a lot more like Outlast with some RE elements rather than being similar to RE4, 5 and 6. As far as going back to roots and people praising the RE franchise - they mean the games up to RE4. And when RE4 came out it was mind-blowingly good but of course it's a 12-year old game. 
 
The thing is Resident Evil was an awesome franchise but as we all older franchises that mainly applies if you played the games when they came out. Right now the younger players just won't accept the old RE games coz they show their age and in my experience it's hard to persuade people accustomed to high-end graphics to play and enjoy old games that look worse than mobile phone games. You need to have an attachment to the series from back in the day
 
Nowadays most gamers judge games mainly by their graphics and controls. And even remasters like RE4 are not up to par to their standards as they have older control schemes, which were standard for the time but the standards changed with the newer generations of consoles, so even people who played the same games back in the day have hard time playing the same games now being accustomed to the newer controls and expecting certain buttons to do certain things. I admit that I got half insane playing Shadow of the Colossus on the ps3.
 
On another note, I just started playing Night in the Woods but it's too early to judge it. It's kinda cute but I don't know... I got it the same day as Hollow Knight and started playing Hollow Knight first and now it's a bit hard to get in the mood for it. Hollow Knight was smashing metroidvania with great pacing and difficulty level (of course if you're not bothered by the Souls mechanics of death), while Night in the Woods while also a 2D platformer is completely different, it's slow-paced and revolves around the characters - has sort of a Life is Strange vibe to it. Will see how it goes.

 

[audioBenj]

  OK I might check out gameplay of RE7, however I have no confidence in it. Every time I buy an RE game I feel like I have wasted my money and say no RE games. Then I buy another.
 
I actually forgot to mention I not only played RE5 and 6. I played RE4 (HD) with it's stupid controls. Though RE4 (HD) was OK but old looking when I played. Plus I played RE Revelations, on the recommendation everyone said it goes back to RE roots. It was average at best and a nightmare to play. I also bought RE Revelations 2 and gave up because it stutters every few seconds.
 
Just a waste of money.

Definitely buy Resident Evil 7 man. Seriously, it has that horror-vibe and the game's plot is actually intriguing. Would definitely recommend.

 

[The Krell]

Just ordered scholar of the first sin from amazon. coz i needed the dark souls fix that bloodborne didn't give me!

 

[SomeGuyDude]

  Well, RE7 is no masterpiece but it's pretty decent.
 
...
 
On another note, I just started playing Night in the Woods but it's too early to judge it. It's kinda cute but I don't know... I got it the same day as Hollow Knight and started playing Hollow Knight first and now it's a bit hard to get in the mood for it. Hollow Knight was smashing metroidvania with great pacing and difficulty level (of course if you're not bothered by the Souls mechanics of death), while Night in the Woods while also a 2D platformer is completely different, it's slow-paced and revolves around the characters - has sort of a Life is Strange vibe to it. Will see how it goes.

I dunno, I'd call RE7 among the best of the year at first.
 
NitW also isn't a platform game. It's very much a choose your own adventure novel with minigames.

 

[Rhamnetin]

  Well, RE7 is no masterpiece but it's pretty decent. It is a lot more like Outlast with some RE elements rather than being similar to RE4, 5 and 6. As far as going back to roots and people praising the RE franchise - they mean the games up to RE4. And when RE4 came out it was mind-blowingly good but of course it's a 12-year old game. 
 
The thing is Resident Evil was an awesome franchise but as we all older franchises that mainly applies if you played the games when they came out. Right now the younger players just won't accept the old RE games coz they show their age and in my experience it's hard to persuade people accustomed to high-end graphics to play and enjoy old games that look worse than mobile phone games. You need to have an attachment to the series from back in the day
 
Nowadays most gamers judge games mainly by their graphics and controls. And even remasters like RE4 are not up to par to their standards as they have older control schemes, which were standard for the time but the standards changed with the newer generations of consoles, so even people who played the same games back in the day have hard time playing the same games now being accustomed to the newer controls and expecting certain buttons to do certain things. I admit that I got half insane playing Shadow of the Colossus on the ps3.
 
On another note, I just started playing Night in the Woods but it's too early to judge it. It's kinda cute but I don't know... I got it the same day as Hollow Knight and started playing Hollow Knight first and now it's a bit hard to get in the mood for it. Hollow Knight was smashing metroidvania with great pacing and difficulty level (of course if you're not bothered by the Souls mechanics of death), while Night in the Woods while also a 2D platformer is completely different, it's slow-paced and revolves around the characters - has sort of a Life is Strange vibe to it. Will see how it goes.

 
This is mostly an accurate analysis.  RE7 is indeed much like Outlast + classic Resident Evil.  However, RE4 was a significant deviation from its roots.  RE4 sits in between classic Resident Evil and RE5/RE6.  RE4 is an action game from start to finish, not a survival horror game like the older ones.  However, RE4 isn't quite as over the top action as RE5/RE6.
 
RE7 is 100% horror like the originals, and the setting is designed to resemble them too (takes place mostly in a mansion with a secret lab next to it, just like RE1).

 

[SomeGuyDude]

   
This is mostly an accurate analysis.  RE7 is indeed much like Outlast + classic Resident Evil.  However, RE4 was a significant deviation from its roots.  RE4 sits in between classic Resident Evil and RE5/RE6.  RE4 is an action game from start to finish, not a survival horror game like the older ones.  However, RE4 isn't quite as over the top action as RE5/RE6.
 
RE7 is 100% horror like the originals, and the setting is designed to resemble them too (takes place mostly in a mansion with a secret lab next to it, just like RE1).

I think this is why I vastly prefer RE7 to RE4. 

 

[Deftone]

Resident Evil 7 - 9.5/10 

 

[GreenBow]

Am playing Diablo 3, and am level 51.
 
It's OK. It's a lot of fun, but I do not know if I would recommend it in all honestly. I think I would have to know the person before I would say I thought it was for them.
 
To me it's a slightly better looking Dungeon Siege 2 (DS2). However DS2 is an old game and Diablo3 is a relatively new game. It has the non-moving camera angle like DS2. It plays and feels exactly like DS2. (I have not played any other Diablo games, by the way.) 
 
If I were to rate I would say about 7.2/10. Or 8/10 depending on what mood I was in.
 
I think my issue is that years ago I loved Dungeon Siege 2. Equally I loved Dungeon Siege, though I never finished it. (Once because I put it down and forgot it, after my PC was stolen. Then second time I played I got stuck and could not kill a monster.) While I like Diablo 3 quite a lot, it feels dated and therefor I don't have the same affection for it that I had for DS and DS2 years ago.
 
Diablo 3 to me is an uncomplicated dungeon crawler, that's well made and stable. It has good characters. It's simplistic and flows well. It's just a shame they didn't make it fully 3D, so we could rotate the camera. (Dungeon Siege 3 did use the modern 3D camera-angle and which could be rotated. Admittedly the default controls were awkward and needed re-mapping. Rotate 'use right mouse'.)
 
Dungeon Siege 3 is also a better looking game to me. It's graphics are more interesting and the sets better. I think Dungeon Siege 3 is the better game in that respect. It's main downfall for me was the difficult inventory that was just a bit complicated. (DS3 also suffered because character creation was limited to four pre-selected characters.) ... However Dungeon Siege 3 was hated by the community and Diablo 3 loved. 

 

[steadead]

I would say Diablo 3 isn't complex, but that's not really its purpose. It's a fun and fast game, meant to be played in somewhat short amount of times.
If you are looking for something a bit more deep, try Path of Exile.

 

[Vigrith]

Diablo 3 is fun for the first little bit of each season and for whenever you're really bored and just wanna blow some **** up - once it gets toward end game (high tier greater rifts) it becomes about rift/mob RNG and lag management. For the first bit it is actually fairly skill intensive when you're pushing tiers with terribly optimised gear, there is relative depth to talent innovation and adapting your play style to the set pieces and legendaries that you first find.
 
Once the gear has fully settled and you're barely scraping for like 2 stat upgrades on your set-in-stone best in slot then it's all about fishing for the best mobs in the best possible rift layout. However once you have a decently geared character, either in seasonal or outside of it, you can just play for fun and mash some monsters in regular rifts for fun.
 
It's not the most entertaining game, it's sort of in a limbo kind of position - it's not a competitive game as there are far more exciting/skill intensive ones out there nowadays - CS, Dota, LoL, Rocket League, anything really. On the other end of the spectrum there are also games that are much more casual that you can have a ton of fun in with your friends if you wanna go that route. Diablo is just stuck in between those categories and caters to very few people.

 

[GreenBow]

Yeah, I mean I have been playing Diablo3 quite a bit. I bought the Warchest pack I think it was, so I have the expansion, 'Reaper of Souls' too. I might be here for quite a while.
 
I started up Dungeon Siege 3 again today and found it quite hard to re-adjust to. It still looks nice though which is a strong point for it. Though the camera angles were also another criticism of it, and I have to concede a point there.

 

[FallenAngel]

Got character through Reaper of Souls to level 70 +150 or so levels in a week, put it down again out of boredom from repetitive grinding.

 

[steadead]

Dishonored 2: 7/10
 
The gameplay isn't really anything new from the first one, The story is pretty bad.
Some level designs were really good (Clockwork Mansion), while others were average to bad.
Overall, it's a decent sequel. 
However, the optimization is utter ****, even if the game looks bad. It's been many months since release, and it still runs bad.

 

[Vigrith]

Got character through Reaper of Souls to level 70 +150 or so levels in a week, put it down again out of boredom from repetitive grinding.

 
Well, that is the very nature of the Diablo franchise, if you don't like grindy dungeon crawlers then Diablo will never work for you (you as in plural, not just aimed at you in particular of course). Compared to Lord of Destruction D2, D3 isn't even that repetitive really - I mean I haven't played in like a year now but grinding is the point; I'm like level 1800 in off-season and I don't even have like half the hours put into it as I did in LoD.