playing eternal sonata and mini ninjas, perhaps not a lot of experience in platforming or tricky manoeuvres? I would say uncharted, but may be too challenging? in that case I must say mass effect would be very appealing. it has lots of character interactions, personal choices and your character can become what you wish it to be. you can do a lot of manipulation and helping people. there is a lot of shooting but it is structured and strategic with a clear goal and you can set it to very easy. it is not one of those action types with lots and lots of blood and bullets spraying everywhere. in fact you can choose a class that allows you to be less of a shooter, more of a 'magician', lifting enemies off the floor with your powers and stuff like that.
I'm sorry. I never got to play these games so I can't fully describe how awesome that would be. but I played xenoblade and loved it. all the music I've heard of xenosaga is awesome and I've seen some amazing video clips. why can't we play this game in the uk? the trilogy wasn't released in the uk so why not give us this chance to play the lot? I only got to play number two and didn't really have the full picture.
i don't know if it is normal to enjoy killing in a game or in life. when i start a new game, my first instinct upon seeing a new NPC or creature, is to watch it and see what it does. for some reason, my friends first instinct is to run up to it and club it to death. sometimes it upsets me. I don't understand why such wanton violence is seen as necessary. there are some games that make me sick for this reason. killzone 2 made me sick because the character you play as is part of the instigator of violence. they attack that planet. they are the bad guys. I enjoy playing games where there is a clear motivation. like for example, protecting the galaxy from a race of giant robots who turn my friends into robotic zombies. or in some games, where somebody runs up to me and attacks me, it is satisfying to shoot them in the face in order to protect myself. it's not fun in the sense that eating cake is fun. it's satisfying in the sense of 'justice'. I guess you could just say I don't hold on to anger. perhaps a lot of people in the world hold onto anger.
Complaining that there is too much stuff to do in an open world and that it's too big. *facepalm*
If anything I want open world games to be bigger, with more sidequests, exploration, and multiple main quests that the user can decide upon.
What is happening when gamers actually ask for less choices in an open world game?????
I'm at a loss. :?
Boddicker
outlining exactly what the problem is. many 'open world' games try to be something they are not. they try to drive a 'main quest' to tie it all together. things like grand theft auto... the earlier ones, they did it right. also, world of warcraft has an element of it by having self contained areas. but I think many of the 'open world' games these days are trying to cater to the people who want a linear game and in so doing, producing the 'split personality' i mentioned. either that, or somebody is mixing up 'open world' games with 'sandbox' games.
personally, I am finding the structure of the game to be a little more dull than the original darksiders. it feels like the world is more split up into horse bits and dungeons. in the original darksiders, the horse was a nice novelty but the majority of the world was designed for war and his abilities. it was smaller, more interesting and exploring was about jumping and traversing obstacles etc. there were no obvious dungeons and no obvious 'outer world'. I find the horse to be annoying anyway. I don't ride the horse on my first time in an area because that makes combat difficult and makes it difficult to see secrets. and I don't use the horse on the second time through an area because I get fast travel. this design decision was very ill considered in my opinion. I'm feeling very underwhelmed since the game so far seems to be a dungeon, then the journey to get to the next dungeon, and so on. I'm hoping it'll change, or I'm going back to kingdoms of amalur and trading darksiders II in for mist of pandara
well when I had oblivion, I played it for so long. I had a lot of fun with that game. but you know one thing I never actually completed in that game? The main quest. open world games are a neat idea.... but I think an open world is more suitable for a simulation. the thing about a game is it has boundaries. that is the nature of gaming. board games have an obvious boundary. many have boxes that you need to land in, some have lines. but there is always a boundary. open world games do have boundaries, but the idea of including a narrative within that world is tough. unless you guide the player along that narrative. and don't distract them with too many sidelines. many games today have sidelines, not just an open world, things like 'jobs' or 'crafting' etc. at times it can get a bit too much. no matter what guise these sidelines are in, too much of them can spoil what the game is trying to do. it's like a split personality.
Ok thanks very much! this will help a lot. I guess it happened a lot to me as i have grown a habit of always pressing space after a full stop. this is a bit awkward but at least I know the cause of it and I can combat it effectively!! though i always have trouble with grammar due to dyslexia... but I can work with it :)
I hear what some of you guys said about some games being shorter and the idea of time = value etc. I did brush over that in my first post by saying, I hold companies to their own standards, not the standards of other games. ICO has a certain quality, and by the pricing of the full game, the publishers assign a certain value to that amount of content and what a player can get out of it. in terms of a beat-em up, the value is probably due to the amount of characters and not how long it takes to beat the game. so for a £40 game that has 10 characters and 10 stages, then it stands to reason that an expansion pack with 1 character and 1 stage might cost around £4. I'm not talking about gamers being greedy or having unreasonable expectations. I actually think it's more to do with the value the producers assign to their own product. by any count, mass effect with a particular number of planets to explore, a certain number of hours available to play, a certain number of weapons to use, a certain number of characters to take with you.... by any of these measures, when we look at a DLC for mass effect, the value is completely wrong. to follow through an example from here other than game length, in mass effect 3 there are 7 basic characters. from ashes gives you 1 character. so from ashes should be around 1/7 of the full game price. £5.70, disregarding the cost of discs, box, distribution etc. it was actually £6.80 or something. I realise this is very in depth and maybe a bit overboard , but i'm just trying to illustrate a point.
Log in to comment