🚀 go-pugleaf

>Definitely a more colorful look than FO:3 or FO:NV.

    E3 had so many great trailers & reveals that I still haven't seen 
everything yet, but indeed did watch the entire Bethesda conference.  The 
FO4 segment certainly was the highlight, and I loved the crazy weapons and 
shooting animations.  The crafting and building stuff was purely ancillary 
and fluffery to me, and hopefully isn't covering a lack of missions and 
character interactions.

Having spent a lot of time in FO3 recently, I'm happy with the November 
release; 6 months is a good period to recharge interest in a franchise.  I 
went into Witcher2 right after W1, and can see that was a mistake.

rms 

On Fri, 19 Jun 2015 07:50:42 -0600, "rms"
<rsqui...@MOOflashMOO.net> wrote:

>>Definitely a more colorful look than FO:3 or FO:NV.
>
>    E3 had so many great trailers & reveals that I still haven't seen 
>everything yet, but indeed did watch the entire Bethesda conference.  The 
>FO4 segment certainly was the highlight, and I loved the crazy weapons and 
>shooting animations.  The crafting and building stuff was purely ancillary 
>and fluffery to me, and hopefully isn't covering a lack of missions and 
>character interactions.
>
>Having spent a lot of time in FO3 recently, I'm happy with the November 
>release; 6 months is a good period to recharge interest in a franchise.  I 
>went into Witcher2 right after W1, and can see that was a mistake.

I feel that way about most of these franchises.  As I was winding down
on GTA V, I thought about how Rockstar seems to have a pretty good
grasp the cycle of new releases -- it's such a long game that it will
probably be another 5-6 years before I have much interest in another
GTA-like game.

As much as I love the Battlefield series, I think BF4 came too quickly
on the heels of BF3, and while it definitely improved it, the
improvements felt too incremental, too little too soon.  The worst
case scenario is cranking out a new title each year (i.e. COD), that
leads to burnout fast.

As far as the Fallout games -- it's been years since I finished FO:NV,
and I was quite sick of it at the time I did (the later hours of
gameplay didn't grab me as much as the initial missions), but now I
think I can say I'm ready for a new FO game, especially if it brings a
lot that's new to the table.  I just hope there's room for it in my
schedule with all the other stuff supposedly coming in the fall.  I
already know RS:Siege will consume my gameplay time, then there's Mad
Max which I'm remaining optimistic about.

> I just hope there's room for it in my
>schedule with all the other stuff supposedly coming in the fall.

    Will you be jumping on the SW Battlefront bandwagon?  I'm completely 
cynical about this title, as it strikes me as a 'remastered' game, and more 
of a recouping of Disney's IP investment than anything else.

rms 

On Fri, 19 Jun 2015 18:14:09 -0600, "rms"
<rsqui...@MOOflashMOO.net> wrote:

>> I just hope there's room for it in my
>>schedule with all the other stuff supposedly coming in the fall.
>
>    Will you be jumping on the SW Battlefront bandwagon?  I'm completely 
>cynical about this title, as it strikes me as a 'remastered' game, and more 
>of a recouping of Disney's IP investment than anything else.

Yes and no.  

I am pre-ordered on Origin, but if it sucks like Battlefield:Hardline
did, and believe me I will know immediately if it does, then it will
quickly fall victim to the Origin refund policy never to be seen
again.  I wouldn't have pre-ordered at all if it were not for the
refund option.  I have a feeling it's either going to be great fun or
a big disappointment, so the way I've hedged my bet I'm good either
way.

The big reason for optimism for me is simply that it comes from DICE,
and they know epic multiplayer gameplay like not too many dev teams
do.  BF:Hardline was not a DICE game, it was done on the Frostbite
engine by Visceral, and it turned out to be quite the turd.

I'm going to be in a bit of a pickle though, if it's a winner, because
by all rights RS:Siege should be what occupies my fall and winter
gaming time.  I will be regrouping with select former clanmates just
like old times for that one.  Having already played the multiplayer
closed alpha, I'm already assured there will be no need for refunds
there.

I don't have any prior experience with the games that SW Battlefront
would be a remake of.  In fact, I liked the first couple of Star Wars
movies back when they first came out and they were age appropriate for
me, but aside from that I'm not even knowledgable about the SW
universe.  For me it will get judged solely on the fun factor as a
multiplayer game and whether it upholds the quality DICE is known for
in that area.

On Fri, 19 Jun 2015 08:15:55 +0300, Rin Stowleigh <rstow...@nevrhadgmail.com> wrote:

> Surprised nobody has brought this up before now.  Looks like some of
> you old farts are getting rusty
>

Bethesda's Fallout? Could not care less, sorry.

Enjoying (mostly) Grimrock 2 right now.

-- 
Andrew Rybenkov

Rin Stowleigh <rstow...@nevrhadgmail.com> writes:

> Surprised nobody has brought this up before now.  Looks like some of
> you old farts are getting rusty :)

I suppose. I was a big fan of both Fallout 3 and New Vegas. I was quite
surprised I grew to like FO3 so much despite all the warts in it. Mostly
the crappy inaccurate guns outside VATS but things got more interesting
after I hunted down some of the guns that have zero drift.

Fallout 4, I never would've guessed it's coming so soon. Hoping for the
best and fearing the worst but at least the gameplay video looked cool.

On Thursday, June 18, 2015 at 10:15:50 PM UTC-7, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
> Surprised nobody has brought this up before now.  Looks like some of
> you old farts are getting rusty :)
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7QK_yEgsV0
> 
> Definitely a more colorful look than FO:3 or FO:NV.  I kind of liked
> the gritty color palette of those games, shouldn't feel like
> Disneyland IMO.  But this looks like fun too.

I'd heard about it, haven't bothered looking into it yet though, I'd rather just wait until it's out.  Preferably until after all the DLCs and I can buy them on sale all at once.

I re-bought Fallout 3 awhile ago with all the DLCs as it was cheaper than buying just the DLCs... go figure.  I then got tired of the game before even getting to any of the DLCs.  Might have something to do with some of the mods I'd installed though, one added a ton areas to explore in the city, and a ton of crap to pick up.

I also did the same with Borderlands 2, though I got slightly into the first DLC, but found it way too hard, and technically did get more use out of it as I played the Psycho up to about 55.

I'm getting really tired of all the DLC business, I just want to buy a game that's got everything in it already.

- Justisaur

On Tue, 23 Jun 2015 12:41:22 +0300, Anssi Saari <a...@sci.fi> wrote:

>Rin Stowleigh <rstow...@nevrhadgmail.com> writes:
>
>> Surprised nobody has brought this up before now.  Looks like some of
>> you old farts are getting rusty :)
>
>I suppose. I was a big fan of both Fallout 3 and New Vegas. I was quite
>surprised I grew to like FO3 so much despite all the warts in it. Mostly
>the crappy inaccurate guns outside VATS but things got more interesting
>after I hunted down some of the guns that have zero drift.
>
>Fallout 4, I never would've guessed it's coming so soon. Hoping for the
>best and fearing the worst but at least the gameplay video looked cool.

>From the link that DMP posted, it looks like they have heard
complaints about the franchise when judged as a shooter.

"With the new, built-from-scratch shooting system, Howard says Fallout
4 plays much more like a modern shooter. You can aim down the sights,
use V.A.T.S., and play in first or third person. "

In a way I can see where they were coming from with the VATS system
and less of an emphasis on real time gun mechanics.  If FO3 had
emerged as a game that felt too much like a first person shooter, fans
of the first two games would have cried blasphemy and gone on about
how the entire Fallout franchise has been betrayed, etc.

I thought the color palette changes also seem to be a response to
widespread criticism.  A lot of folks just felt FO3 and FO:NV were too
dreary looking -- never bothered me but I could see where they were
coming from simultaneously.

One thing I will say that pains me to watch that video is the emphasis
on character creation.  How much is it going to really impact gameplay
having one nose or facial hair configuration versus the other?

The development time spent doing things like making sure the baby is
properly generated from parents is time that could have been spent
doing something else that IMO adds more value to the overall
experience.  I doubt most people are going to start a new game a
couple of dozen times just so they can see all the possible baby
combinations.  Most of the time the player will be running through the
city looking at the back of their own head.  Yes, the customizations
will be seen in the cutscenes, but the fact that there is so much
emphasis on cutscene visuals is what's so wrong with gaming these
days.

Want a story and characters?  Watch a movie, it's a much better
experience.  The very idea of "playing games" implies being presented
with and trying to overcome some challenge either tactically or via
hand-eye coordination, in order to defeat the challenge and achieve
some goal.  At some point we've just gotten lost in the idea that
dozens of hours should be spent watching interactive movies and that
this somehow constitutes "gaming".

On Tue, 23 Jun 2015 09:14:00 -0700 (PDT), Justisaur
<just...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, June 18, 2015 at 10:15:50 PM UTC-7, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
>> Surprised nobody has brought this up before now.  Looks like some of
>> you old farts are getting rusty :)
>> 
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7QK_yEgsV0
>> 
>> Definitely a more colorful look than FO:3 or FO:NV.  I kind of liked
>> the gritty color palette of those games, shouldn't feel like
>> Disneyland IMO.  But this looks like fun too.
>
>I'd heard about it, haven't bothered looking into it yet though, I'd rather just wait until it's out.  Preferably until after all the DLCs and I can buy them on sale all at once.
>
>I re-bought Fallout 3 awhile ago with all the DLCs as it was cheaper than buying just the DLCs... go figure.  I then got tired of the game before even getting to any of the DLCs.  Might have something to do with some of the mods I'd installed though, one added a ton areas to explore in the city, and a ton of crap to pick up.
>
>I also did the same with Borderlands 2, though I got slightly into the first DLC, but found it way too hard, and technically did get more use out of it as I played the Psycho up to about 55.
>
>I'm getting really tired of all the DLC business, I just want to buy a game that's got everything in it already.

I have no real use for DLC in single player titles, which is why I
pretty much never buy it unless it is included in an on-sale late
purchase.

A good example is Dying Light.  I enjoyed the SP game thoroughly, but
when I finished the campaign I was finished.  No desire to spend more
for add-on missions.  I needed a break from the long campaign by the
time I was done, was not looking for encore performances.  Even if
they release an all-inclusive version with all DLC for a fraction of
the cost of the DLC itself, I'll still probably never play it again.

I see single-player DLC as mostly the waste product of the gaming
process.  Someone has taken all the content that didn't seem good
enough to be judged in release ratings, or the crap that seemed oddly
disconnected from the main game, and found a way to repackage it.  

Kind of like these mystery-meat spam-like food products.  It's like
"ok, here's all the shit that came flying off the animal while the
prime cuts were being butchered, so lets grind it up and shape it into
something that looks fit for human consumption and sell it at a higher
profit margin than the primary product".

The exception for me is in multiplayer games where DLC equates to more
maps to play.  Number of quality maps is everything.  DICE is one
example where the DLC model has replaced what was previously
"expansion packs", and done so successfully.  They are one of the few
companies that live up to the promises they make by extending the life
of their games through expansion pack updates (although admittedly
their premium editions which include all DLC are pricey by most folk's
standards).

One of those "in-between" cases that comes to mind is FarCry4.  I
bought the season pass mostly for the promised multiplayer additions,
most of which turned out to not be worth the extra cost.  Most of the
single player DLC I haven't even loaded up.  On the other hand, the
fact that this franchise has mechanisms that allow users to create
their own levels (co-op only unfortunately) and easily publish them
for others to play makes me want to support them with my dollars.  I
really wish they would open the user created maps to competitive play,
but the fact that they basically offer "infinite DLC" with the
community-maps model is something to be commended in this day of
gaming.  Reminds me of the old days of community mods.

Yes, sometimes DLC multiplayer content is actually worth the asking
price.  Sometimes the maps themselves are well designed, and while I
doubt many in these 2 newsgroups will be able to relate, the
multiplayer community knows that sometimes there is actually a benefit
to not releasing too many maps at once.  If you release a game with 20
maps, the folks that buy it on release tend to focus on the 4 or 5
best ones and ignore the rest and the game kind of carves out it's
niche around them.  The other 15 get ignored and just fall out of the
loop.  However, if you release them incrementally, like four at a time
right around the time the community has tired of the first four, you
can provide an experience that results in hundreds of hours of
playtime, ongoing friends made, and so forth.  Only problem is, all
maps must be of decent quality of course level design and testing is
different with today's detailed environments.  This incremental map
release cycle is what DICE really shines at.  Valve has also been
great with their ongoing success of Team Fortress 2.  That game is now
8 years old, free to play, yet has an un-ending supply of people
playing it.  You can't get much more bang for your buck than that in
gaming.

On Tuesday, June 23, 2015 at 1:57:53 PM UTC-7, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Jun 2015 12:41:22 +0300, Anssi Saari <a...@sci.fi> wrote:
> 
> >Rin Stowleigh <rstow...@nevrhadgmail.com> writes:
> >
> >> Surprised nobody has brought this up before now.  Looks like some of
> >> you old farts are getting rusty :)
> >
> >I suppose. I was a big fan of both Fallout 3 and New Vegas. I was quite
> >surprised I grew to like FO3 so much despite all the warts in it. Mostly
> >the crappy inaccurate guns outside VATS but things got more interesting
> >after I hunted down some of the guns that have zero drift.
> >
> >Fallout 4, I never would've guessed it's coming so soon. Hoping for the
> >best and fearing the worst but at least the gameplay video looked cool.
> 
> From the link that DMP posted, it looks like they have heard
> complaints about the franchise when judged as a shooter.
> 
> "With the new, built-from-scratch shooting system, Howard says Fallout
> 4 plays much more like a modern shooter. You can aim down the sights,
> use V.A.T.S., and play in first or third person. "
> 
> In a way I can see where they were coming from with the VATS system
> and less of an emphasis on real time gun mechanics.  If FO3 had
> emerged as a game that felt too much like a first person shooter, fans
> of the first two games would have cried blasphemy and gone on about
> how the entire Fallout franchise has been betrayed, etc.
> 
> I thought the color palette changes also seem to be a response to
> widespread criticism.  A lot of folks just felt FO3 and FO:NV were too
> dreary looking -- never bothered me but I could see where they were
> coming from simultaneously.

I hope they don't ruin it just because of the whiners, and turn it into just another shooter.  I thought the colors were appropriate, and prefer using VATS when I can.  There was some mod that made it so you could use VATS all the time, and removed most of the advantages - the multiplier on damage and damage resistance.

- Justisaur

On Tuesday, June 23, 2015 at 9:35:40 PM UTC-7, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Jun 2015 09:14:00 -0700 (PDT), Justisaur
> <just...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> >On Thursday, June 18, 2015 at 10:15:50 PM UTC-7, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
> >> Surprised nobody has brought this up before now.  Looks like some of
> >> you old farts are getting rusty :)
> >> 
> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7QK_yEgsV0
> >> 
> >> Definitely a more colorful look than FO:3 or FO:NV.  I kind of liked
> >> the gritty color palette of those games, shouldn't feel like
> >> Disneyland IMO.  But this looks like fun too.
> >
> >I'd heard about it, haven't bothered looking into it yet though, I'd rather just wait until it's out.  Preferably until after all the DLCs and I can buy them on sale all at once.
> >
> >I re-bought Fallout 3 awhile ago with all the DLCs as it was cheaper than buying just the DLCs... go figure.  I then got tired of the game before even getting to any of the DLCs.  Might have something to do with some of the mods I'd installed though, one added a ton areas to explore in the city, and a ton of crap to pick up.
> >
> >I also did the same with Borderlands 2, though I got slightly into the first DLC, but found it way too hard, and technically did get more use out of it as I played the Psycho up to about 55.
> >
> >I'm getting really tired of all the DLC business, I just want to buy a game that's got everything in it already.
> 
> I have no real use for DLC in single player titles, which is why I
> pretty much never buy it unless it is included in an on-sale late
> purchase.
> 
> A good example is Dying Light.  I enjoyed the SP game thoroughly, but
> when I finished the campaign I was finished.  No desire to spend more
> for add-on missions.  I needed a break from the long campaign by the
> time I was done, was not looking for encore performances.  Even if
> they release an all-inclusive version with all DLC for a fraction of
> the cost of the DLC itself, I'll still probably never play it again.
> 
> I see single-player DLC as mostly the waste product of the gaming
> process.  Someone has taken all the content that didn't seem good
> enough to be judged in release ratings, or the crap that seemed oddly
> disconnected from the main game, and found a way to repackage it.  
> 
> Kind of like these mystery-meat spam-like food products.  It's like
> "ok, here's all the shit that came flying off the animal while the
> prime cuts were being butchered, so lets grind it up and shape it into
> something that looks fit for human consumption and sell it at a higher
> profit margin than the primary product".
> 
> The exception for me is in multiplayer games where DLC equates to more
> maps to play.  Number of quality maps is everything.  DICE is one
> example where the DLC model has replaced what was previously
> "expansion packs", and done so successfully.  They are one of the few
> companies that live up to the promises they make by extending the life
> of their games through expansion pack updates (although admittedly
> their premium editions which include all DLC are pricey by most folk's
> standards).
> 
> One of those "in-between" cases that comes to mind is FarCry4.  I
> bought the season pass mostly for the promised multiplayer additions,
> most of which turned out to not be worth the extra cost.  Most of the
> single player DLC I haven't even loaded up.  On the other hand, the
> fact that this franchise has mechanisms that allow users to create
> their own levels (co-op only unfortunately) and easily publish them
> for others to play makes me want to support them with my dollars.  I
> really wish they would open the user created maps to competitive play,
> but the fact that they basically offer "infinite DLC" with the
> community-maps model is something to be commended in this day of
> gaming.  Reminds me of the old days of community mods.
> 
> Yes, sometimes DLC multiplayer content is actually worth the asking
> price.  Sometimes the maps themselves are well designed, and while I
> doubt many in these 2 newsgroups will be able to relate, the
> multiplayer community knows that sometimes there is actually a benefit
> to not releasing too many maps at once.  If you release a game with 20
> maps, the folks that buy it on release tend to focus on the 4 or 5
> best ones and ignore the rest and the game kind of carves out it's
> niche around them.  The other 15 get ignored and just fall out of the
> loop.  However, if you release them incrementally, like four at a time
> right around the time the community has tired of the first four, you
> can provide an experience that results in hundreds of hours of
> playtime, ongoing friends made, and so forth.  Only problem is, all
> maps must be of decent quality of course level design and testing is
> different with today's detailed environments.  This incremental map
> release cycle is what DICE really shines at.  Valve has also been
> great with their ongoing success of Team Fortress 2.  That game is now
> 8 years old, free to play, yet has an un-ending supply of people
> playing it.  You can't get much more bang for your buck than that in
> gaming.

Borderlands 1 DLCs, they hugely improved the game, I enjoyed the DLC stories far more than the original game.  

The only other similar one I can think of is NWN, the additional adventures were also far better than the original one.  

Of course I can't really comment on the Fallout 3 ones as I never actually got to them.  Part of the problem with what I did was probably playing new characters through the whole game again with both FO3 and BL2 instead of taking my favorites through the DLCs as I did with Borderlands 1.  Of course I found the DLCs insanely hard with my old Gunzerker for BL2, which is why I started a new character there.  FO3 I don't think I had any of my old saves.

The ones that really irritate me are the ones that are like 'get a new gun that's 10x better than anything else in the game for $9'  That's more like micro-transactions than DLCs.  Especially annoying in multiplayer games.

- Justisaur