Minishdriveby's forum posts

Avatar image for Minishdriveby
Minishdriveby

10519

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

519

Followers

Reviews: 23

User Lists: 0

#1 Minishdriveby
Member since 2006 • 10519 Posts

@Boddicker said:

This is the one game when it was announced as an X1 exclusive actually made me entertain the idea of buying an X1.

Luckily you don't have to waste your money on an X1.

http://store.steampowered.com/app/246110/

Avatar image for Minishdriveby
Minishdriveby

10519

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

519

Followers

Reviews: 23

User Lists: 0

#2 Minishdriveby
Member since 2006 • 10519 Posts
@Salt_The_Fries said:

First of all, I don't care that it is on Xbox One for the sake of itself (it's also on PC and Linux). By the way, it's weird the same studio decided to team up with Sony for one game (Grim Fandango remake) and with Microsoft for another one (Massive Chalice). Oh then there was Broken Age.

Anyway, I've been keeping an eye on this game for a very long time. It is made by the other Double Fine mastermind, Brad Muir, who was a programmer of Psychonauts, lead designer of Brutal Legend, and a director behind Iron Brigade.

There are not a lot of turn-based strategy games on current-gen consoles. What makes this one unique is injection of roguelike elements within the gameplay frames: like permadeath of heroes (you have to make a choice if you want to let them stay in combat for longer or you want them to live long enough to have some posterity which would make a new generation of warriors) and randomization of world, its heroes, and skirmishes. It's also "built for replayability". Apparently:

Your knowledge and skill will increase over multiple playthroughs, but the details of every game will change based on your decisions and the whims of fate.

I'm beyond happy this game that I hugely anticipated somehow ended up as a Games with Gold title. And you should, too.

What are your thoughts?

Pump it up @freedomfreak@jg4xchamp !

My thoughts? "lead designer of Brutal Legend"


Avatar image for Minishdriveby
Minishdriveby

10519

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

519

Followers

Reviews: 23

User Lists: 0

#3  Edited By Minishdriveby
Member since 2006 • 10519 Posts

What's the problem?

Avatar image for Minishdriveby
Minishdriveby

10519

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

519

Followers

Reviews: 23

User Lists: 0

#4 Minishdriveby
Member since 2006 • 10519 Posts

Hopefully Witcher 3 gets a remaster soon.

Avatar image for Minishdriveby
Minishdriveby

10519

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

519

Followers

Reviews: 23

User Lists: 0

#5 Minishdriveby
Member since 2006 • 10519 Posts

@2Chalupas said:
@drekula2 said:

Any examples of where Gamespot's score was significantly different than that of most publications.

I respect that Tom McShea gave Bioshock Infinite a 4/10 because he was being honest (even though I enjoyed the game and would score it an 8/10 myself). A game is either an enjoyable enriching experience or it's not.

With the case of many widely praised games, you often see on Metacritic, 70 critics approve and 3 critics are mixed on it. And then when the consumers get the product, you'll realize its much more deeply polarized.

If you didn't enjoy a game it's a <5/10. Doesn't matter how good the graphics are, or how functional the gameplay is.

Tom McShea is one of the worst reviewers this site has ever had. Did he get fired? Ifinally) or is he still here?

Professional Reviews should not be totally subjective like that - "oh I wasn't in the mood to play this type of game today, I think I'll score it a 4". Surely whether a game is "fun" is hugely important, but as a professional reviewer there has to be more to the analysis - and some consistency. It's like if we have a professional restaurant critic that hates italian food, so he randomly just rates every italian restaurant 1* or 2* instead of giving it a fair review. That just tells me the guy isn't qualified to be a restaurant critic. Same idea here.

I get that some people want them to use the entire 1-10 scale, and maybe that's why alot of revieweres score everything in a safe 7-9 range. But when only one guy is doing it - as Tom was doing with many of his reviews - it kind of blows up the scoring system and makes it come off as unprofessional, or even troll worthy.

BioShock Infinite falls flat on just about every note. It falls flat on gameplay, removing features from it's predecessors which weren't stellar in the gameplay department. It falls flat on exploration, setting up an extremely linear journey taking away the little exploration in the past games that helped flesh the world out. It falls flat in the story, removing almost all of the interesting societal aspects of Columbia, the jingoism, the racism, and the religious overtones, in favor of Looper the videogame which is basically the only aspect anyone talks about anymore (DAT ENDING 'DOUGH), probably out of the fact that everything else was piddling.

BioShock Infinite is an a subpar game despite it's pretty graphics although I'm don't really hold the original BioShock on a pedestal like some people do. On my scale that has no relevance to anyone but me BioShock would probably be around a 7 and Infinite would probably be a 6 or 5.

Avatar image for Minishdriveby
Minishdriveby

10519

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

519

Followers

Reviews: 23

User Lists: 0

#6 Minishdriveby
Member since 2006 • 10519 Posts

Let's be honest. It's better than Citizen Kane. It's gaming's Ulysses.

Avatar image for Minishdriveby
Minishdriveby

10519

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

519

Followers

Reviews: 23

User Lists: 0

#7  Edited By Minishdriveby
Member since 2006 • 10519 Posts

@wiouds said:
@Minishdriveby said:
@wiouds said:
@Minishdriveby said:
@wiouds said:

Digital is not bad but Digital only is bad for gamers and other consumers.

I think there are a lot of caveats to this statement that are not addressed by many people in favor of blanket statements like "Digital only is bad for gamers and other consumers". There are benefits and drawbacks to digital only media; it's not a universal bad.

Any benefits that come from digital you still get from a digital and physical market but you lose the benefits from physical copies in the digital only method.

There are benefits to digital only markets, such as small developers self-publishing titles directly to online marketplaces or freely on the internet. This is something that cannot be done in a digital/physical market where small developers cannot cover production costs to make physical copies and larger publishers don't want to take a risk on swallowing that cost. There are already tons of digital only games that are only possible because they are only distributed digitally.

I think you're confusing digital distribution with the concept of DRM which are two distinct concepts, and while DRM is usually a consequence of digital distribution, not all digital distribution includes DRM and if you so desired you could create a physical disc or save the files to a portable jumpdrive and magically and then miraculously you now have a "physical product".

I think you are confusing games being sold without physical and a digital only market.

For those games, it is a digital only market.

Either way a digital only market doesn't necessarily mean that you cannot create a physical product. Those aren't inherent limitations in a digital only market; those are limitations placed in effect by companies trying to regulate a digital only market, something that is harder said than done on an open platform.

Avatar image for Minishdriveby
Minishdriveby

10519

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

519

Followers

Reviews: 23

User Lists: 0

#8 Minishdriveby
Member since 2006 • 10519 Posts

@wiouds said:
@Minishdriveby said:
@wiouds said:

Digital is not bad but Digital only is bad for gamers and other consumers.

I think there are a lot of caveats to this statement that are not addressed by many people in favor of blanket statements like "Digital only is bad for gamers and other consumers". There are benefits and drawbacks to digital only media; it's not a universal bad.

Any benefits that come from digital you still get from a digital and physical market but you lose the benefits from physical copies in the digital only method.

There are benefits to digital only markets, such as small developers self-publishing titles directly to online marketplaces or freely on the internet. This is something that cannot be done in a digital/physical market where small developers cannot cover production costs to make physical copies and larger publishers don't want to take a risk on swallowing that cost. There are already tons of digital only games that are only possible because they are only distributed digitally.

I think you're confusing digital distribution with the concept of DRM which are two distinct concepts, and while DRM is usually a consequence of digital distribution, not all digital distribution includes DRM and if you so desired you could create a physical disc or save the files to a portable jumpdrive and magically and then miraculously you now have a "physical product".

Avatar image for Minishdriveby
Minishdriveby

10519

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

519

Followers

Reviews: 23

User Lists: 0

#9 Minishdriveby
Member since 2006 • 10519 Posts

Child of Light might be worth checking out... not an MMO but it should be a fairly simple RPG.
Valkyria Chronicles if you want a more mature RPG
Costume Quest is a cute game around Halloween

Rune Scape for an MMO? MMOs are hard to control content because you're interacting with others.

Avatar image for Minishdriveby
Minishdriveby

10519

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

519

Followers

Reviews: 23

User Lists: 0

#10 Minishdriveby
Member since 2006 • 10519 Posts
@wiouds said:

Digital is not bad but Digital only is bad for gamers and other consumers.

I think there are a lot of caveats to this statement that are not addressed by many people in favor of blanket statements like "Digital only is bad for gamers and other consumers". There are benefits and drawbacks to digital only media; it's not a universal bad.