Video games...what ya playing? And what are you looking forward to? (3 Viewers)

[Mad Cow]

Anyone signing up to try Neverwinter MMO? Free to play, and looks pretty slick. As an unabashed fanboy of the NWN series, I am IN!

Is this free to play like Path of Exile where things you can buy don't affect game play?

Nah its similar to most other F2P MMOs, its close to Guildwars 2 but much more pay to win.

The game has three currencies (much like Guildwars 2), Gold, which is largely a useless unused currency that drops from mobs; Astral Diamonds, the official currency of the auction house, which you can get from doing daily quests or can be bought by the third currency: Zen, which is the the real money currency. With Zen you can buy faster mounts, convenience items and boosts for faster leveling.

Its unfortunate cause the combat system is kind of fun, but there is very little content and the pay to win model is pretty obnoxious.

If you read the articles, that is not the case with Neverwinter. It has departed from the TOR and DDO models. You are not throttled or limited in this F2P. It is still in beta, so content is limited, but the fact that users can create quests? Freaking amazing.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Played Metro: Last Light for a couple hours last night (thanks for the free rental, Redbox!).

Seems like a game I could get into. I didn't expect it to be a combat/stealth game.

 

[jwb]

Played Metro: Last Light for a couple hours last night (thanks for the free rental, Redbox!).

Seems like a game I could get into. I didn't expect it to be a combat/stealth game.

Really digging this so far. It's not the best combat game ever, and it's not the best stealth game, but boy does it do a good job combining them. They made some very nice cosmetic and "little things" improvements from the first - the guns feel right, it's not as clunky, and stealth works well without being overpowered.

 

[Run It Up]

Anyone signing up to try Neverwinter MMO? Free to play, and looks pretty slick. As an unabashed fanboy of the NWN series, I am IN!

Is this free to play like Path of Exile where things you can buy don't affect game play?

Nah its similar to most other F2P MMOs, its close to Guildwars 2 but much more pay to win.

The game has three currencies (much like Guildwars 2), Gold, which is largely a useless unused currency that drops from mobs; Astral Diamonds, the official currency of the auction house, which you can get from doing daily quests or can be bought by the third currency: Zen, which is the the real money currency. With Zen you can buy faster mounts, convenience items and boosts for faster leveling.

Its unfortunate cause the combat system is kind of fun, but there is very little content and the pay to win model is pretty obnoxious.

If you read the articles, that is not the case with Neverwinter. It has departed from the TOR and DDO models. You are not throttled or limited in this F2P. It is still in beta, so content is limited, but the fact that users can create quests? Freaking amazing.

I have a level 30 wizard, I've played it quite a bit - had to put it down though, the itemization system was poor imo as crafting enchantments which is like half of your gear score takes forever unless you buy items with diamonds/zen. I don't know what the articles have to contribute to my opinion though. I agree however that the foundry is an amazing idea, and was executed really well.

My opinion of their business model is pretty concrete though, you can do everything in the game without buying anything, or you can pay and do it better and faster, thats why its pay to win.

 

[One]

I'm pumped for Metal Gear Solid 5 - The Phantom Pain. Hopefully it releases by the end of the year.

 

[Pigskin Fanatic]

Oblivion is a great game in its own right. Totally worth playing by itself. I would probably start with Oblivion because Skyrim is just so much more of what Oblivion did great.

Personally I would just go straight to Skyrim. I've said this before, but Oblivion's leveling system is just broken to the point that it really messes up the game. You can work around it by studying the finer points of power-leveling from wikis, or you can just turn the difficulty slider down. But why bother when Skyrim is sitting there waiting for you? You won't be missing out on much in terms of story; they're really both stand-alone titles.

That said, Oblivion is better than Skyrim in terms of quests and storylines. It's just that the leveling is so bad that my vote is for Skyrim.

I have to disagree with my good buddy Ivan here. The Oblivion leveling system is 90% about making the right choices at the beginning. Now yes it's good to do a little reading to make sure you take the right approach but after that I didn't mess with worrying about it. I built several character classes that way.

But you can't really go wrong either way IMO.

Personally I would just go straight to Skyrim. I've said this before, but Oblivion's leveling system is just broken to the point that it really messes up the game. You can work around it by studying the finer points of power-leveling from wikis, or you can just turn the difficulty slider down. But why bother when Skyrim is sitting there waiting for you? You won't be missing out on much in terms of story; they're really both stand-alone titles.That said, Oblivion is better than Skyrim in terms of quests and storylines. It's just that the leveling is so bad that my vote is for Skyrim.

Just for the record I happened (no idea how I missed it) to figure out where the listing was for how long I've played Skyrim. One character - a bit over 300 hours. So much to consume in Skyrim that you'll finish it in time to catch the next Fallout that they have coming out.

Good stuff, thanks all. Can't wait to play either or both now.

 

[NewlyRetired]

Oblivion designer group meeting circa 2003

Every one huddled around a small table discussing ideas.

The young quiet kid raises his hand and makes a suggestion.

"for a naming convention, lets call all the skills you want to use in the game your minor skills, and all the skills you don't want to use your major skills".

Everyone looks at each and agrees that it makes perfect sense and use that simple naming convention to create the most screwed up leveling system ever.

 

[SlaX]

PC gamers, the rebooted Tomb Raider is on sale for $14 at Green Man Gaming. Use coupon code GMG20-LLASD-D8WBQ at checkout.

http://www.joystiq.com/2013/05/24/tomb-raider-on-sale-for-14-at-green-man-gaming/

 

[E Street Brat]

MC

I cant get Sleeping dogs to play on my 5850 tip screens.

Is there a game setting I'm seeing?

 

[Run It Up]

Oblivion designer group meeting circa 2003

Every one huddled around a small table discussing ideas.

The young quiet kid raises his hand and makes a suggestion.

"for a naming convention, lets call all the skills you want to use in the game your minor skills, and all the skills you don't want to use your major skills".

Everyone looks at each and agrees that it makes perfect sense and use that simple naming convention to create the most screwed up leveling system ever.

They tried to simplify a mechanic from Morrowind, that was fine the way it was and instead made it garbage.

 

[jwb]

Oblivion designer group meeting circa 2003

Every one huddled around a small table discussing ideas.

The young quiet kid raises his hand and makes a suggestion.

"for a naming convention, lets call all the skills you want to use in the game your minor skills, and all the skills you don't want to use your major skills".

Everyone looks at each and agrees that it makes perfect sense and use that simple naming convention to create the most screwed up leveling system ever.

They tried to simplify a mechanic from Morrowind, that was fine the way it was and instead made it garbage.

The Elder Scrolls games have always been about "you level by actually using skills" instead of experience points. The bad part is, you can mistakenly level up by running and jumping. It wouldn't be so bad if the rest of the world didn't level up with you, making some battles impossible for non-combat-leveled characters. Plus, bandits wearing glass armor is silly.

 

[Run It Up]

Oblivion designer group meeting circa 2003

Every one huddled around a small table discussing ideas.

The young quiet kid raises his hand and makes a suggestion.

"for a naming convention, lets call all the skills you want to use in the game your minor skills, and all the skills you don't want to use your major skills".

Everyone looks at each and agrees that it makes perfect sense and use that simple naming convention to create the most screwed up leveling system ever.

They tried to simplify a mechanic from Morrowind, that was fine the way it was and instead made it garbage.

The Elder Scrolls games have always been about "you level by actually using skills" instead of experience points. The bad part is, you can mistakenly level up by running and jumping. It wouldn't be so bad if the rest of the world didn't level up with you, making some battles impossible for non-combat-leveled characters. Plus, bandits wearing glass armor is silly.

Again, this was an oblivion and then skyrim mechanic that 'improved' upon the previous iterations.In Morrowind 99% of the world was static, the only randomly generated stuff was crap in non-treasure containers like food barrels. Monsters spawned in general areas and were statically leveled. If you stumbled upon a daedra shrine and it was inhabited by some Golden Saints (high level daedra) it was tough luck.I remember that there used to be an ebony mine near one of the towns at the beginning of the main story quest, if you found it it was just labeled as "lost mine". Later on you could sell the location of the mine to a prospector of one of the great houses in the capitol city for a Daedric weapon. You could do this at level 1.I remember hearing about the change before Oblivion came out thinking to myself that sounds great, every playthrough will be different. And in reality every playthrough was exactly the same it just took 20 levels for the actual hard gameplay and good loot to arrive - and until then you had to mow down leather wearing bandits and rats.

 

[E Street Brat]

MC

I cant get Sleeping dogs to play on my 5850 tip screens.

Is there a game setting I'm seeing?

Got it

I had the wrong resolutuion set

 

[jwb]

Oblivion designer group meeting circa 2003

Every one huddled around a small table discussing ideas.

The young quiet kid raises his hand and makes a suggestion.

"for a naming convention, lets call all the skills you want to use in the game your minor skills, and all the skills you don't want to use your major skills".

Everyone looks at each and agrees that it makes perfect sense and use that simple naming convention to create the most screwed up leveling system ever.

They tried to simplify a mechanic from Morrowind, that was fine the way it was and instead made it garbage.

The Elder Scrolls games have always been about "you level by actually using skills" instead of experience points. The bad part is, you can mistakenly level up by running and jumping. It wouldn't be so bad if the rest of the world didn't level up with you, making some battles impossible for non-combat-leveled characters. Plus, bandits wearing glass armor is silly.

Again, this was an oblivion and then skyrim mechanic that 'improved' upon the previous iterations.In Morrowind 99% of the world was static, the only randomly generated stuff was crap in non-treasure containers like food barrels. Monsters spawned in general areas and were statically leveled. If you stumbled upon a daedra shrine and it was inhabited by some Golden Saints (high level daedra) it was tough luck.I remember that there used to be an ebony mine near one of the towns at the beginning of the main story quest, if you found it it was just labeled as "lost mine". Later on you could sell the location of the mine to a prospector of one of the great houses in the capitol city for a Daedric weapon. You could do this at level 1.I remember hearing about the change before Oblivion came out thinking to myself that sounds great, every playthrough will be different. And in reality every playthrough was exactly the same it just took 20 levels for the actual hard gameplay and good loot to arrive - and until then you had to mow down leather wearing bandits and rats.

sigh... Now you're making me want to go back to Morrowind

Three coins, Outlander

 

[Chaka]

Okay so I finished ME3 (did Destroy and Synthesis endings). I had the extended cut DLC installed and aside from reducing the war assets required for the "good" endings what does it change? I watched a video for the destroy option with the original ending and I did not see a difference. So what's the big deal? Why the outrage.

Also, what a great series of games,top notch across the board. Now that is a game universe I wouldn't mind seeing transferred to the big screen.

 

[Chaka]

Played Metro: Last Light for a couple hours last night (thanks for the free rental, Redbox!).

Seems like a game I could get into. I didn't expect it to be a combat/stealth game.

Really digging this so far. It's not the best combat game ever, and it's not the best stealth game, but boy does it do a good job combining them. They made some very nice cosmetic and "little things" improvements from the first - the guns feel right, it's not as clunky, and stealth works well without being overpowered.

Sounds a bit like Deus Ex: Human Revolution. Is that about right?

 

[Chaka]

Okay so I finished ME3 (did Destroy and Synthesis endings). I had the extended cut DLC installed and aside from reducing the war assets required for the "good" endings what does it change? I watched a video for the destroy option with the original ending and I did not see a difference. So what's the big deal? Why the outrage.

Also, what a great series of games,top notch across the board. Now that is a game universe I wouldn't mind seeing transferred to the big screen.

Okay I see that the addition of the three different V.O. epilogues (Hackett, Edi & Shepard) and the Memorial Wall. Plus I guess the catalyst offers more dialogue options that give additional info about pretty much everything during his exchange with Shepard.

Is this what people were so upset about or was it the high war asset requirement to get all the endings that really ticked people off?

 

[Drifter]

Played Metro: Last Light for a couple hours last night (thanks for the free rental, Redbox!). Seems like a game I could get into. I didn't expect it to be a combat/stealth game.

Really digging this so far. It's not the best combat game ever, and it's not the best stealth game, but boy does it do a good job combining them. They made some very nice cosmetic and "little things" improvements from the first - the guns feel right, it's not as clunky, and stealth works well without being overpowered.

Sounds a bit like Deus Ex: Human Revolution. Is that about right?

Haven't played the second Metro but the first had no role playing elements whatsoever.

 

[Chaka]

Played Metro: Last Light for a couple hours last night (thanks for the free rental, Redbox!). Seems like a game I could get into. I didn't expect it to be a combat/stealth game.

Really digging this so far. It's not the best combat game ever, and it's not the best stealth game, but boy does it do a good job combining them. They made some very nice cosmetic and "little things" improvements from the first - the guns feel right, it's not as clunky, and stealth works well without being overpowered.

Sounds a bit like Deus Ex: Human Revolution. Is that about right?

Haven't played the second Metro but the first had no role playing elements whatsoever.

I am sometimes unclear on the differences between FPS, role playing and action games. Skyrim is a role playing game but you can play from first person perspective and it seems exactly like a FPS when using a bow & arrow. Mass Effect & Deus Ex are third person perspective game (skyrim can be too) but the action is similar to a FPS.

Steam calls Metro an action game so what is the perspective and how is the gameplay different than ME or DE or Skyrim? It looks like an FPS to me. How is that different than a role playing game?

 

[jwb]

Played Metro: Last Light for a couple hours last night (thanks for the free rental, Redbox!). Seems like a game I could get into. I didn't expect it to be a combat/stealth game.

Really digging this so far. It's not the best combat game ever, and it's not the best stealth game, but boy does it do a good job combining them. They made some very nice cosmetic and "little things" improvements from the first - the guns feel right, it's not as clunky, and stealth works well without being overpowered.

Sounds a bit like Deus Ex: Human Revolution. Is that about right?

Haven't played the second Metro but the first had no role playing elements whatsoever.

I am sometimes unclear on the differences between FPS, role playing and action games. Skyrim is a role playing game but you can play from first person perspective and it seems exactly like a FPS when using a bow & arrow. Mass Effect & Deus Ex are third person perspective game (skyrim can be too) but the action is similar to a FPS.

Steam calls Metro an action game so what is the perspective and how is the gameplay different than ME or DE or Skyrim? It looks like an FPS to me. How is that different than a role playing game?

A "role playing game" typically means character development is left up to you (playing the role you wish). It has its roots in the old pen-and-paper dungeons and dragons game, and will generally use stats, powers, which you increase when you gain levels. The way you develop your character is critical to your gaming experience. Two different types of characters can have vastly different ways of getting through the game. Role playing games are usually fairly large, with optional side quests, and sometimes huge, open worlds.

A FPS (first person shooter) generally has no stats (or very, very few). You go, you shoot. Maybe you get a better gun, but there are few character options. You also can't just go anywhere - you have a "level" / playing field, and that's that. See that mountain in the distance? You can't go there. These are called 'action games" sometimes.

Over the years, the lines have really blurred - call of duty remains a classic first person shooter (but even in that there are ways to customize your character), but games like Deus Ex have really brought both elements into play. Fallout started as an isometric perspective role playing game, and introduced a ton of FPS elements when it hit consoles.

And let's not forget stealth games (or stealth elements in FPS games!) Confused yet?

I look at it this way - if a game is more "twitch-based" in shooting (you need to be quick, you need to "strafe", "camping" is a word used in multiplayer, etc), you are probably playing an action / FPS game. If the pace is a little slower, and how you built your character really matters, you are probably playing more of a role playing game.

Metro is a first-person shooter that is also somewhat stealthy / slow if you want it to be. But there are no stats, and no way to build your character.

 

[Chaka]

Played Metro: Last Light for a couple hours last night (thanks for the free rental, Redbox!). Seems like a game I could get into. I didn't expect it to be a combat/stealth game.

Really digging this so far. It's not the best combat game ever, and it's not the best stealth game, but boy does it do a good job combining them. They made some very nice cosmetic and "little things" improvements from the first - the guns feel right, it's not as clunky, and stealth works well without being overpowered.

Sounds a bit like Deus Ex: Human Revolution. Is that about right?

Haven't played the second Metro but the first had no role playing elements whatsoever.

I am sometimes unclear on the differences between FPS, role playing and action games. Skyrim is a role playing game but you can play from first person perspective and it seems exactly like a FPS when using a bow & arrow. Mass Effect & Deus Ex are third person perspective game (skyrim can be too) but the action is similar to a FPS.

Steam calls Metro an action game so what is the perspective and how is the gameplay different than ME or DE or Skyrim? It looks like an FPS to me. How is that different than a role playing game?

A "role playing game" typically means character development is left up to you (playing the role you wish). It has its roots in the old pen-and-paper dungeons and dragons game, and will generally use stats, powers, which you increase when you gain levels. The way you develop your character is critical to your gaming experience. Two different types of characters can have vastly different ways of getting through the game. Role playing games are usually fairly large, with optional side quests, and sometimes huge, open worlds.

A FPS (first person shooter) generally has no stats (or very, very few). You go, you shoot. Maybe you get a better gun, but there are few character options. You also can't just go anywhere - you have a "level" / playing field, and that's that. See that mountain in the distance? You can't go there. These are called 'action games" sometimes.

Over the years, the lines have really blurred - call of duty remains a classic first person shooter (but even in that there are ways to customize your character), but games like Deus Ex have really brought both elements into play. Fallout started as an isometric perspective role playing game, and introduced a ton of FPS elements when it hit consoles.

And let's not forget stealth games (or stealth elements in FPS games!) Confused yet?

I look at it this way - if a game is more "twitch-based" in shooting (you need to be quick, you need to "strafe", "camping" is a word used in multiplayer, etc), you are probably playing an action / FPS game. If the pace is a little slower, and how you built your character really matters, you are probably playing more of a role playing game.

Metro is a first-person shooter that is also somewhat stealthy / slow if you want it to be. But there are no stats, and no way to build your character.

I get all those things but for me it starts with the perspective of the gamer. If it's first person perspective it's an FPS, it can have unique character leveling but it's still an FPS. Borderlands 2 is an FPS even though I can develop my character in any number of ways. Maybe some of them are more action (BL2) or adventure (Skyrim) but if the perspective is first person then it's an FPS to me.

 

[Drifter]

Played Metro: Last Light for a couple hours last night (thanks for the free rental, Redbox!). Seems like a game I could get into. I didn't expect it to be a combat/stealth game.

Really digging this so far. It's not the best combat game ever, and it's not the best stealth game, but boy does it do a good job combining them. They made some very nice cosmetic and "little things" improvements from the first - the guns feel right, it's not as clunky, and stealth works well without being overpowered.

Sounds a bit like Deus Ex: Human Revolution. Is that about right?

Haven't played the second Metro but the first had no role playing elements whatsoever.

I am sometimes unclear on the differences between FPS, role playing and action games. Skyrim is a role playing game but you can play from first person perspective and it seems exactly like a FPS when using a bow & arrow. Mass Effect & Deus Ex are third person perspective game (skyrim can be too) but the action is similar to a FPS. Steam calls Metro an action game so what is the perspective and how is the gameplay different than ME or DE or Skyrim? It looks like an FPS to me. How is that different than a role playing game?

A "role playing game" typically means character development is left up to you (playing the role you wish). It has its roots in the old pen-and-paper dungeons and dragons game, and will generally use stats, powers, which you increase when you gain levels. The way you develop your character is critical to your gaming experience. Two different types of characters can have vastly different ways of getting through the game. Role playing games are usually fairly large, with optional side quests, and sometimes huge, open worlds. A FPS (first person shooter) generally has no stats (or very, very few). You go, you shoot. Maybe you get a better gun, but there are few character options. You also can't just go anywhere - you have a "level" / playing field, and that's that. See that mountain in the distance? You can't go there. These are called 'action games" sometimes. Over the years, the lines have really blurred - call of duty remains a classic first person shooter (but even in that there are ways to customize your character), but games like Deus Ex have really brought both elements into play. Fallout started as an isometric perspective role playing game, and introduced a ton of FPS elements when it hit consoles. And let's not forget stealth games (or stealth elements in FPS games!) Confused yet? I look at it this way - if a game is more "twitch-based" in shooting (you need to be quick, you need to "strafe", "camping" is a word used in multiplayer, etc), you are probably playing an action / FPS game. If the pace is a little slower, and how you built your character really matters, you are probably playing more of a role playing game. Metro is a first-person shooter that is also somewhat stealthy / slow if you want it to be. But there are no stats, and no way to build your character.

I get all those things but for me it starts with the perspective of the gamer. If it's first person perspective it's an FPS, it can have unique character leveling but it's still an FPS. Borderlands 2 is an FPS even though I can develop my character in any number of ways. Maybe some of them are more action (BL2) or adventure (Skyrim) but if the perspective is first person then it's an FPS to me.

You can choose to name it however you want in your own mind but what you have described is not the convention. First person perspective <> first person shooter

 

[jwb]

Played Metro: Last Light for a couple hours last night (thanks for the free rental, Redbox!). Seems like a game I could get into. I didn't expect it to be a combat/stealth game.

Really digging this so far. It's not the best combat game ever, and it's not the best stealth game, but boy does it do a good job combining them. They made some very nice cosmetic and "little things" improvements from the first - the guns feel right, it's not as clunky, and stealth works well without being overpowered.

Sounds a bit like Deus Ex: Human Revolution. Is that about right?

Haven't played the second Metro but the first had no role playing elements whatsoever.

I am sometimes unclear on the differences between FPS, role playing and action games. Skyrim is a role playing game but you can play from first person perspective and it seems exactly like a FPS when using a bow & arrow. Mass Effect & Deus Ex are third person perspective game (skyrim can be too) but the action is similar to a FPS.

Steam calls Metro an action game so what is the perspective and how is the gameplay different than ME or DE or Skyrim? It looks like an FPS to me. How is that different than a role playing game?

A "role playing game" typically means character development is left up to you (playing the role you wish). It has its roots in the old pen-and-paper dungeons and dragons game, and will generally use stats, powers, which you increase when you gain levels. The way you develop your character is critical to your gaming experience. Two different types of characters can have vastly different ways of getting through the game. Role playing games are usually fairly large, with optional side quests, and sometimes huge, open worlds.

A FPS (first person shooter) generally has no stats (or very, very few). You go, you shoot. Maybe you get a better gun, but there are few character options. You also can't just go anywhere - you have a "level" / playing field, and that's that. See that mountain in the distance? You can't go there. These are called 'action games" sometimes.

Over the years, the lines have really blurred - call of duty remains a classic first person shooter (but even in that there are ways to customize your character), but games like Deus Ex have really brought both elements into play. Fallout started as an isometric perspective role playing game, and introduced a ton of FPS elements when it hit consoles.

And let's not forget stealth games (or stealth elements in FPS games!) Confused yet?

I look at it this way - if a game is more "twitch-based" in shooting (you need to be quick, you need to "strafe", "camping" is a word used in multiplayer, etc), you are probably playing an action / FPS game. If the pace is a little slower, and how you built your character really matters, you are probably playing more of a role playing game.

Metro is a first-person shooter that is also somewhat stealthy / slow if you want it to be. But there are no stats, and no way to build your character.

I get all those things but for me it starts with the perspective of the gamer. If it's first person perspective it's an FPS, it can have unique character leveling but it's still an FPS. Borderlands 2 is an FPS even though I can develop my character in any number of ways. Maybe some of them are more action (BL2) or adventure (Skyrim) but if the perspective is first person then it's an FPS to me.

You can call it whatever you wish, of course.

But really, first person is more of a perspective, as is third person. The perspective has little influence on the "type" of game it is these days. We should really just get rid of the perspective altogether in trying to define a game. CoD, Halo, and Gears are shooters. Mass Effect, Fallout, and Skyrim are role playing games.

 

[STEADYMOBBIN 22]

I just picked up the GOTY edition of Red Dead Redemption. I lent this to a friend awhile back and just let him hang on to it because one of his games I lent him got stolen by the son of my FIL's GF. One time incident, needless to say the kid is not ever welcome again. Anyhow - Damn, I forgot how great a game this is. Gorgeous to look at. I'm playing on the GOTY exclusive hardcore mode which should be fun.

 

[Chaka]

Played Metro: Last Light for a couple hours last night (thanks for the free rental, Redbox!). Seems like a game I could get into. I didn't expect it to be a combat/stealth game.

Really digging this so far. It's not the best combat game ever, and it's not the best stealth game, but boy does it do a good job combining them. They made some very nice cosmetic and "little things" improvements from the first - the guns feel right, it's not as clunky, and stealth works well without being overpowered.

Sounds a bit like Deus Ex: Human Revolution. Is that about right?

Haven't played the second Metro but the first had no role playing elements whatsoever.

I am sometimes unclear on the differences between FPS, role playing and action games. Skyrim is a role playing game but you can play from first person perspective and it seems exactly like a FPS when using a bow & arrow. Mass Effect & Deus Ex are third person perspective game (skyrim can be too) but the action is similar to a FPS. Steam calls Metro an action game so what is the perspective and how is the gameplay different than ME or DE or Skyrim? It looks like an FPS to me. How is that different than a role playing game?

A "role playing game" typically means character development is left up to you (playing the role you wish). It has its roots in the old pen-and-paper dungeons and dragons game, and will generally use stats, powers, which you increase when you gain levels. The way you develop your character is critical to your gaming experience. Two different types of characters can have vastly different ways of getting through the game. Role playing games are usually fairly large, with optional side quests, and sometimes huge, open worlds. A FPS (first person shooter) generally has no stats (or very, very few). You go, you shoot. Maybe you get a better gun, but there are few character options. You also can't just go anywhere - you have a "level" / playing field, and that's that. See that mountain in the distance? You can't go there. These are called 'action games" sometimes. Over the years, the lines have really blurred - call of duty remains a classic first person shooter (but even in that there are ways to customize your character), but games like Deus Ex have really brought both elements into play. Fallout started as an isometric perspective role playing game, and introduced a ton of FPS elements when it hit consoles. And let's not forget stealth games (or stealth elements in FPS games!) Confused yet? I look at it this way - if a game is more "twitch-based" in shooting (you need to be quick, you need to "strafe", "camping" is a word used in multiplayer, etc), you are probably playing an action / FPS game. If the pace is a little slower, and how you built your character really matters, you are probably playing more of a role playing game. Metro is a first-person shooter that is also somewhat stealthy / slow if you want it to be. But there are no stats, and no way to build your character.

I get all those things but for me it starts with the perspective of the gamer. If it's first person perspective it's an FPS, it can have unique character leveling but it's still an FPS. Borderlands 2 is an FPS even though I can develop my character in any number of ways. Maybe some of them are more action (BL2) or adventure (Skyrim) but if the perspective is first person then it's an FPS to me.

You can choose to name it however you want in your own mind but what you have described is not the convention. First person perspective <> first person shooter

What first person perspective games are not shooters of some sort? Skyrim is a shooter on most levels.

 

[Chaka]

Played Metro: Last Light for a couple hours last night (thanks for the free rental, Redbox!). Seems like a game I could get into. I didn't expect it to be a combat/stealth game.

Really digging this so far. It's not the best combat game ever, and it's not the best stealth game, but boy does it do a good job combining them. They made some very nice cosmetic and "little things" improvements from the first - the guns feel right, it's not as clunky, and stealth works well without being overpowered.

Sounds a bit like Deus Ex: Human Revolution. Is that about right?

Haven't played the second Metro but the first had no role playing elements whatsoever.

I am sometimes unclear on the differences between FPS, role playing and action games. Skyrim is a role playing game but you can play from first person perspective and it seems exactly like a FPS when using a bow & arrow. Mass Effect & Deus Ex are third person perspective game (skyrim can be too) but the action is similar to a FPS.

Steam calls Metro an action game so what is the perspective and how is the gameplay different than ME or DE or Skyrim? It looks like an FPS to me. How is that different than a role playing game?

A "role playing game" typically means character development is left up to you (playing the role you wish). It has its roots in the old pen-and-paper dungeons and dragons game, and will generally use stats, powers, which you increase when you gain levels. The way you develop your character is critical to your gaming experience. Two different types of characters can have vastly different ways of getting through the game. Role playing games are usually fairly large, with optional side quests, and sometimes huge, open worlds.

A FPS (first person shooter) generally has no stats (or very, very few). You go, you shoot. Maybe you get a better gun, but there are few character options. You also can't just go anywhere - you have a "level" / playing field, and that's that. See that mountain in the distance? You can't go there. These are called 'action games" sometimes.

Over the years, the lines have really blurred - call of duty remains a classic first person shooter (but even in that there are ways to customize your character), but games like Deus Ex have really brought both elements into play. Fallout started as an isometric perspective role playing game, and introduced a ton of FPS elements when it hit consoles.

And let's not forget stealth games (or stealth elements in FPS games!) Confused yet?

I look at it this way - if a game is more "twitch-based" in shooting (you need to be quick, you need to "strafe", "camping" is a word used in multiplayer, etc), you are probably playing an action / FPS game. If the pace is a little slower, and how you built your character really matters, you are probably playing more of a role playing game.

Metro is a first-person shooter that is also somewhat stealthy / slow if you want it to be. But there are no stats, and no way to build your character.

I get all those things but for me it starts with the perspective of the gamer. If it's first person perspective it's an FPS, it can have unique character leveling but it's still an FPS. Borderlands 2 is an FPS even though I can develop my character in any number of ways. Maybe some of them are more action (BL2) or adventure (Skyrim) but if the perspective is first person then it's an FPS to me.

You can call it whatever you wish, of course.

But really, first person is more of a perspective, as is third person. The perspective has little influence on the "type" of game it is these days. We should really just get rid of the perspective altogether in trying to define a game. CoD, Halo, and Gears are shooters. Mass Effect, Fallout, and Skyrim are role playing games.

Perspective is the most basic and necessary descriptive when defining the nature of a game. Again, is Borderlands 2 not a FPS because I control the direction my character can kill things through leveling up in the skill tree?

Skyrim is an adventure, role playing game but it's also a first person shooter. I won't say it's an FPS at it's most basic level (because of it's excellent third person perspective option) but when you're sitting back casting spells or one shotting bad guys with arrows it's obviously a FPS.

The first thing I want to know about a new game is what is the perspective first person, third person, real time strategy, turn based etc. Any of those game types can be action, adventure, role playing etc but the perspective is the most basic defining factor.

 

[SlaX]

Played Metro: Last Light for a couple hours last night (thanks for the free rental, Redbox!). Seems like a game I could get into. I didn't expect it to be a combat/stealth game.

Really digging this so far. It's not the best combat game ever, and it's not the best stealth game, but boy does it do a good job combining them. They made some very nice cosmetic and "little things" improvements from the first - the guns feel right, it's not as clunky, and stealth works well without being overpowered.

Sounds a bit like Deus Ex: Human Revolution. Is that about right?

Haven't played the second Metro but the first had no role playing elements whatsoever.

I am sometimes unclear on the differences between FPS, role playing and action games. Skyrim is a role playing game but you can play from first person perspective and it seems exactly like a FPS when using a bow & arrow. Mass Effect & Deus Ex are third person perspective game (skyrim can be too) but the action is similar to a FPS. Steam calls Metro an action game so what is the perspective and how is the gameplay different than ME or DE or Skyrim? It looks like an FPS to me. How is that different than a role playing game?

A "role playing game" typically means character development is left up to you (playing the role you wish). It has its roots in the old pen-and-paper dungeons and dragons game, and will generally use stats, powers, which you increase when you gain levels. The way you develop your character is critical to your gaming experience. Two different types of characters can have vastly different ways of getting through the game. Role playing games are usually fairly large, with optional side quests, and sometimes huge, open worlds. A FPS (first person shooter) generally has no stats (or very, very few). You go, you shoot. Maybe you get a better gun, but there are few character options. You also can't just go anywhere - you have a "level" / playing field, and that's that. See that mountain in the distance? You can't go there. These are called 'action games" sometimes. Over the years, the lines have really blurred - call of duty remains a classic first person shooter (but even in that there are ways to customize your character), but games like Deus Ex have really brought both elements into play. Fallout started as an isometric perspective role playing game, and introduced a ton of FPS elements when it hit consoles. And let's not forget stealth games (or stealth elements in FPS games!) Confused yet? I look at it this way - if a game is more "twitch-based" in shooting (you need to be quick, you need to "strafe", "camping" is a word used in multiplayer, etc), you are probably playing an action / FPS game. If the pace is a little slower, and how you built your character really matters, you are probably playing more of a role playing game. Metro is a first-person shooter that is also somewhat stealthy / slow if you want it to be. But there are no stats, and no way to build your character.

I get all those things but for me it starts with the perspective of the gamer. If it's first person perspective it's an FPS, it can have unique character leveling but it's still an FPS. Borderlands 2 is an FPS even though I can develop my character in any number of ways. Maybe some of them are more action (BL2) or adventure (Skyrim) but if the perspective is first person then it's an FPS to me.

You can choose to name it however you want in your own mind but what you have described is not the convention. First person perspective <> first person shooter

What first person perspective games are not shooters of some sort? Skyrim is a shooter on most levels.

First one that comes to mind for me is Mirror's Edge. Also, some say that Portal is a first-person non-shooter. While technically you are shooting projectiles in the form of portals, it's not a shooter in the traditional sense.

 

[jwb]

Played Metro: Last Light for a couple hours last night (thanks for the free rental, Redbox!). Seems like a game I could get into. I didn't expect it to be a combat/stealth game.

Really digging this so far. It's not the best combat game ever, and it's not the best stealth game, but boy does it do a good job combining them. They made some very nice cosmetic and "little things" improvements from the first - the guns feel right, it's not as clunky, and stealth works well without being overpowered.

Sounds a bit like Deus Ex: Human Revolution. Is that about right?

Haven't played the second Metro but the first had no role playing elements whatsoever.

I am sometimes unclear on the differences between FPS, role playing and action games. Skyrim is a role playing game but you can play from first person perspective and it seems exactly like a FPS when using a bow & arrow. Mass Effect & Deus Ex are third person perspective game (skyrim can be too) but the action is similar to a FPS.

Steam calls Metro an action game so what is the perspective and how is the gameplay different than ME or DE or Skyrim? It looks like an FPS to me. How is that different than a role playing game?

A "role playing game" typically means character development is left up to you (playing the role you wish). It has its roots in the old pen-and-paper dungeons and dragons game, and will generally use stats, powers, which you increase when you gain levels. The way you develop your character is critical to your gaming experience. Two different types of characters can have vastly different ways of getting through the game. Role playing games are usually fairly large, with optional side quests, and sometimes huge, open worlds.

A FPS (first person shooter) generally has no stats (or very, very few). You go, you shoot. Maybe you get a better gun, but there are few character options. You also can't just go anywhere - you have a "level" / playing field, and that's that. See that mountain in the distance? You can't go there. These are called 'action games" sometimes.

Over the years, the lines have really blurred - call of duty remains a classic first person shooter (but even in that there are ways to customize your character), but games like Deus Ex have really brought both elements into play. Fallout started as an isometric perspective role playing game, and introduced a ton of FPS elements when it hit consoles.

And let's not forget stealth games (or stealth elements in FPS games!) Confused yet?

I look at it this way - if a game is more "twitch-based" in shooting (you need to be quick, you need to "strafe", "camping" is a word used in multiplayer, etc), you are probably playing an action / FPS game. If the pace is a little slower, and how you built your character really matters, you are probably playing more of a role playing game.

Metro is a first-person shooter that is also somewhat stealthy / slow if you want it to be. But there are no stats, and no way to build your character.

I get all those things but for me it starts with the perspective of the gamer. If it's first person perspective it's an FPS, it can have unique character leveling but it's still an FPS. Borderlands 2 is an FPS even though I can develop my character in any number of ways. Maybe some of them are more action (BL2) or adventure (Skyrim) but if the perspective is first person then it's an FPS to me.

You can call it whatever you wish, of course.

But really, first person is more of a perspective, as is third person. The perspective has little influence on the "type" of game it is these days. We should really just get rid of the perspective altogether in trying to define a game. CoD, Halo, and Gears are shooters. Mass Effect, Fallout, and Skyrim are role playing games.

Perspective is the most basic and necessary descriptive when defining the nature of a game. Again, is Borderlands 2 not a FPS because I control the direction my character can kill things through leveling up in the skill tree?

Skyrim is an adventure, role playing game but it's also a first person shooter. I won't say it's an FPS at it's most basic level (because of it's excellent third person perspective option) but when you're sitting back casting spells or one shotting bad guys with arrows it's obviously a FPS.

The first thing I want to know about a new game is what is the perspective first person, third person, real time strategy, turn based etc. Any of those game types can be action, adventure, role playing etc but the perspective is the most basic defining factor.

If you want to see it that way, that's fine.

Maybe it depends when you started gaming? To me (and probably millions) the "shooter" part of FPS meant Doom / Quake style games. Duke Nukem. Unreal Tournament. Then Call of Duty / Halo. Even if you "shoot" in Skyrim, it's nowhere near the same style game.

But you can play Skyrim without "shooting" anything, too. So, you can call Skyrim a role playing game in first person, but you really can't call it an FPS. To me, anyway. To you, FPS just means any first person game, right? (they did once make a dungeon crawler that was pure shooter - Hexen, I think. And a sequel.

 

[STEADYMOBBIN 22]

You guys will argue about anything.

 

[Frank Drebin]

You guys will argue about anything.

 

[Insein]

Okay so I finished ME3 (did Destroy and Synthesis endings). I had the extended cut DLC installed and aside from reducing the war assets required for the "good" endings what does it change? I watched a video for the destroy option with the original ending and I did not see a difference. So what's the big deal? Why the outrage.

Also, what a great series of games,top notch across the board. Now that is a game universe I wouldn't mind seeing transferred to the big screen.

Okay I see that the addition of the three different V.O. epilogues (Hackett, Edi & Shepard) and the Memorial Wall. Plus I guess the catalyst offers more dialogue options that give additional info about pretty much everything during his exchange with Shepard.Is this what people were so upset about or was it the high war asset requirement to get all the endings that really ticked people off?

 

[Worm]

You guys will argue about anything.

Bull####!

 

[IvanKaramazov]

What first person perspective games are not shooters of some sort? Skyrim is a shooter on most levels.

Skyrim is not a shooter by anybody's standard. You spend maybe one tenth of one percent of your play time in combat. The rest is exploring, talking to people, crafting iron daggers, etc.

 

[Insein]

What first person perspective games are not shooters of some sort? Skyrim is a shooter on most levels.

Skyrim is not a shooter by anybody's standard. You spend maybe one tenth of one percent of your play time in combat. The rest is exploring, talking to people, crafting iron daggers, etc.

Portal's a good one. Unless you count shooting portals on walls.

 

[jwb]

You guys will argue about anything.

 

[Run It Up]

A game I've been following on greenlight got stuck up in the redtape, so they released a demo.

Its an action platforming rpg called Rogue Legacy. Its a metroidvania style with procedurally generated levels.

Anyway, you can find a link to the demo on their website. Its really fun.

 

[STEADYMOBBIN 22]

A game I've been following on greenlight got stuck up in the redtape, so they released a demo.

Its an action platforming rpg called Rogue Legacy. Its a metroidvania style with procedurally generated levels.

Anyway, you can find a link to the demo on their website. Its really fun.

Looks like Wonder Boy gameplay meets Castlevania SOTN maps.

 

[Drifter]

FYI - I picked up a Steam license for XCOM off Ebay for $13. Don't know what the deal is but it was legit, DL'd fine and I've been playing today.

Good fun. I knew I'd enjoy the game but decided to not buy at release and wait for the price drop. When the price refused to drop very much I got stubborn and held out.

 

[Chaka]

What first person perspective games are not shooters of some sort? Skyrim is a shooter on most levels.

Skyrim is not a shooter by anybody's standard. You spend maybe one tenth of one percent of your play time in combat. The rest is exploring, talking to people, crafting iron daggers, etc.

I get that it's an adventure/role play game and sure you can go through the game without fighting much but for most people the primary dynamic is going places and fighting things (ranged and melee) from a first person perspective. Both of which are effectively the same game play as something like Borderlands 2 (no one is telling me that is not a shooter even though you level your character and talk to people) or CoD.

You don't need to call it a FPS, and I agree that it isn't from a large perspective, but if you are going to recommend Skyrim I think the most important descriptive you can use would be to tell someone that it is a first person game. If you just tell me it's a role playing game then I have no idea what the actual game play will be like, is it third person Mass Effect style, turn based XCOM style, first person Borderlands 2 style?

 

[Chaka]

People in this thread sure like to complain what other people are talking about. First it was too much talk about Mass Effect now it's complaining about people talking about game play styles.

 

[Run It Up]

What first person perspective games are not shooters of some sort? Skyrim is a shooter on most levels.

Skyrim is not a shooter by anybody's standard. You spend maybe one tenth of one percent of your play time in combat. The rest is exploring, talking to people, crafting iron daggers, etc.

I get that it's an adventure/role play game and sure you can go through the game without fighting much but for most people the primary dynamic is going places and fighting things (ranged and melee) from a first person perspective. Both of which are effectively the same game play as something like Borderlands 2 (no one is telling me that is not a shooter even though you level your character and talk to people) or CoD.

You don't need to call it a FPS, and I agree that it isn't from a large perspective, but if you are going to recommend Skyrim I think the most important descriptive you can use would be to tell someone that it is a first person game. If you just tell me it's a role playing game then I have no idea what the actual game play will be like, is it third person Mass Effect style, turn based XCOM style, first person Borderlands 2 style?

You can also walk around in 3rd person... its an open world action rpg.

 

[Jobber]

People in this thread sure like to complain what other people are talking about. First it was too much talk about Mass Effect now it's complaining about people talking about game play styles.

Nobody complains more than video game nerds. Just check out the xbox one thread.

 

[Chaka]

Okay so I finished ME3 (did Destroy and Synthesis endings). I had the extended cut DLC installed and aside from reducing the war assets required for the "good" endings what does it change? I watched a video for the destroy option with the original ending and I did not see a difference. So what's the big deal? Why the outrage.

Also, what a great series of games,top notch across the board. Now that is a game universe I wouldn't mind seeing transferred to the big screen.

Okay I see that the addition of the three different V.O. epilogues (Hackett, Edi & Shepard) and the Memorial Wall. Plus I guess the catalyst offers more dialogue options that give additional info about pretty much everything during his exchange with Shepard.Is this what people were so upset about or was it the high war asset requirement to get all the endings that really ticked people off?

Thanks.

Some good criticisms in that video. It seems like BioWare directly addressed many of the complaints except for the last two (well they addressed that too but the outcomes are problematic).

 

[Chaka]

What first person perspective games are not shooters of some sort? Skyrim is a shooter on most levels.

Skyrim is not a shooter by anybody's standard. You spend maybe one tenth of one percent of your play time in combat. The rest is exploring, talking to people, crafting iron daggers, etc.

I get that it's an adventure/role play game and sure you can go through the game without fighting much but for most people the primary dynamic is going places and fighting things (ranged and melee) from a first person perspective. Both of which are effectively the same game play as something like Borderlands 2 (no one is telling me that is not a shooter even though you level your character and talk to people) or CoD.

You don't need to call it a FPS, and I agree that it isn't from a large perspective, but if you are going to recommend Skyrim I think the most important descriptive you can use would be to tell someone that it is a first person game. If you just tell me it's a role playing game then I have no idea what the actual game play will be like, is it third person Mass Effect style, turn based XCOM style, first person Borderlands 2 style?

You can also walk around in 3rd person... its an open world action rpg.

I mentioned that in a previous post. My only point is that if you are going to describe a game to me "action rpg" leaves out some key info "action rpg with first and third person world interaction/game play" lets me know that I am getting Skyrim and not XCOM.

 

[Jobber]

I really want to give Far Cry 3 a go. Is there a difference between the PS3 and Xbox versions? DLC content or otherwise?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I really want to give Far Cry 3 a go. Is there a difference between the PS3 and Xbox versions? DLC content or otherwise?

I don't believe so.

 

[Insein]

Okay so I finished ME3 (did Destroy and Synthesis endings). I had the extended cut DLC installed and aside from reducing the war assets required for the "good" endings what does it change? I watched a video for the destroy option with the original ending and I did not see a difference. So what's the big deal? Why the outrage.

Also, what a great series of games,top notch across the board. Now that is a game universe I wouldn't mind seeing transferred to the big screen.

Okay I see that the addition of the three different V.O. epilogues (Hackett, Edi & Shepard) and the Memorial Wall. Plus I guess the catalyst offers more dialogue options that give additional info about pretty much everything during his exchange with Shepard.Is this what people were so upset about or was it the high war asset requirement to get all the endings that really ticked people off?

Pretty much. Its like they watched angry joes video and made a checklist on what to fix for the extended cut.

 

[Insein]

What first person perspective games are not shooters of some sort? Skyrim is a shooter on most levels.

Skyrim is not a shooter by anybody's standard. You spend maybe one tenth of one percent of your play time in combat. The rest is exploring, talking to people, crafting iron daggers, etc.

I get that it's an adventure/role play game and sure you can go through the game without fighting much but for most people the primary dynamic is going places and fighting things (ranged and melee) from a first person perspective. Both of which are effectively the same game play as something like Borderlands 2 (no one is telling me that is not a shooter even though you level your character and talk to people) or CoD. You don't need to call it a FPS, and I agree that it isn't from a large perspective, but if you are going to recommend Skyrim I think the most important descriptive you can use would be to tell someone that it is a first person game. If you just tell me it's a role playing game then I have no idea what the actual game play will be like, is it third person Mass Effect style, turn based XCOM style, first person Borderlands 2 style?

You can also walk around in 3rd person... its an open world action rpg.

I mentioned that in a previous post. My only point is that if you are going to describe a game to me "action rpg" leaves out some key info "action rpg with first and third person world interaction/game play" lets me know that I am getting Skyrim and not XCOM.

Xcom is a turn based strategy with micromanagement elements.

 

[SlaX]

People in this thread sure like to complain what other people are talking about. First it was too much talk about Mass Effect now it's complaining about people talking about game play styles.

I never complained about too much Mass Effect talk. I just commented that the last 5 pages were completely on Mass Effect and joked that we should change the title of the thread to 'Mostly Mass Effect talk".

 

[SlaX]

People in this thread sure like to complain what other people are talking about. First it was too much talk about Mass Effect now it's complaining about people talking about game play styles.

Nobody complains more than video game nerds. Just check out the xbox one thread.

Or pretty much every video game site on the net. The XBox Reveal got trashed by ALL critics. And I'm talking about the most respected individuals in the industry.