This Generation of Gaming is going to be the Worst.

[Icon of Sin]

Why would Activision do that when people still buy their 'new games' full price?

My own issue is why are consumers this shortsighted and why aren't they more vocal about it.

They get fucked in the ass and they're ok with it.

Edited February 28, 2014 by Woodshooter

[LuxSpes]

My own issue is why are consumers this shortsighted and why aren't they more vocal about it.

They get fucked in the ass and they're ok with it.

People are shortsighted and not vocal about being screwed on tons of issues, gaming being one of the lesser ones.

As a Canadian, the bail-out given to the companies that caused the economic crisis is completely ludicrous. These few heads of companies drove the whole economy into a recession because they were too greedy, causing all sorts of problems to the everyday citizen. What did the government do? Take the citizen's money and gave them to these very companies that crashed the economy(and some of these companies barely lost a nickel because they had sold their insured risk to other people. No wonder the CEOs gave themselves bonuses with that money). And the citizens took it. Sure, there was the occupy wall street movement that lasted a couple of months, but after a while, even though nothing had changed, people went back to their ordinary lives.

[Icon of Sin]

And yet with a bit more effort we could've had something akin to the French Revolution against them.

[Lord Raven]

What do you say about games that constantly show you where you need to go, when said thing may be supposed to be hidden or hard to find.

Some games also feel like they are grabbing you by the arm and telling you to do x tasks before you can proceed. It's fine to be given options, but it isn't to be treated like a five year old.

Examples please?

[Icon of Sin]

Well since I brought it up earlier :

And I mentionned Skyrim earlier. A game such as Legend of Zelda : a Link to Past does have the objectives shown on the map, at least in terms of dungeons and where the bosses are, but Skyrim doesn't have any sort of road blocks and fast travel is easily available.

Edited February 28, 2014 by Woodshooter

[Tangerine]

And I also think that the obsession with graphics are a major problem that plagued the last two generations at the very least. The big 3rd-parties as well as Microsoft and Sony to an extent are guilty of this in my eyes. The major way they advertised their next gen consoles and games was better graphics and minor gameplay changes. Nintendo went with the try new gameplay options, less power and people are constantly insulting them in the medias.

Linked to that is the obsession with being 'Mature' and 'Hardcore'. If you look at the best-selling 3rd party games and first-party games from Sony and Microsoft, the majority of them are M-rated games filled to the brim with violence. People accuse Nintendo of being kiddy and to concerned with the casuals, but I'd much rather prefer playing in the brightly colored world of Zelda than ripping heads off monsters in God of War. I personally think that playing M-rated games as a kid will have an impact. I'm not saying it will make you a murderer or a social deviant, but I would have a problem seeing my hypothetical 10 year old killing people and showering himself with blood even if it's just a game.

Why would Activision do that when people still buy their 'new games' full price?

Nintendo gets a lot of crap for a lot of legitimate reasons, it's not all about how weak their consoles have been in comparison to the competition. But that's a legitimate complaint too, even if it doesn't dictate the quality of the games on the system.

Sony's owned franchises of the last generation included: Gran Turismo, Uncharted, Ratchet & Clank, LittleBigPlanet, InFAMOUS, Heavy Rain, MLB, Hot Shots Golf, Flower, Journey.

Microsoft also tried to branch out, but the difference was their userbase just didn't buy it. You can't say they didn't try when they commissioned games like Lost Odyssey, Tales of Vesperia, Kameo, Banjo Kazooie, Viva Pinata, Blue Dragon and Forza. In the end only one of those series actually sold well, so they stopped paying for or making them.

These are hardly the M rated, gory, gritty games you're describing, so I'm starting to wonder if you actually owned the consoles and played the games you're talking about. They released their share of those, but that's called supporting your console with versatile content. There is a market for the God of Wars of the world, so why shouldn't they supply it? I really do not see how it is a knock against these companies to have those games, especially when it is clear that they have games that are not like that at all. I guarantee you that if third parties actually felt their games could sell on Nintendo consoles, even the ones with "mature" content, they would be on Nintendo consoles. The difference is that third party support is overwhelming superior on the other brands.

[Dr. Tarrasque]

And the lack of the better Third-party support is probably a reason why Nintendo's been aiming for casuals since the Wii which for the most part had relevance for its 1st party titles.

My main problem with Nintendo would have to be that they're trying too hard with making "innovative" control for games and often not giving you the option to use a more traditional style that you're used to. You see Sony and Microsoft imitate the motion control idea from Nintendo but while they try to make it relevant with some games, they don't make it the system's main control.

Games of all kinds exist today, thing is that it's not just the developers that are the issue. Consumers are too.

Edited February 28, 2014 by Sirius

[LuxSpes]

Nintendo gets a lot of crap for a lot of legitimate reasons, it's not all about how weak their consoles have been in comparison to the competition. But that's a legitimate complaint too, even if it doesn't dictate the quality of the games on the system.

Sony's owned franchises of the last generation included: Gran Turismo, Uncharted, Ratchet & Clank, LittleBigPlanet, InFAMOUS, Heavy Rain, MLB, Hot Shots Golf, Flower, Journey.

Microsoft also tried to branch out, but the difference was their userbase just didn't buy it. You can't say they didn't try when they commissioned games like Lost Odyssey, Tales of Vesperia, Kameo, Banjo Kazooie, Viva Pinata, Blue Dragon and Forza. In the end only one of those series actually sold well, so they stopped paying for or making them.

These are hardly the M rated, gory, gritty games you're describing, so I'm starting to wonder if you actually owned the consoles and played the games you're talking about. They released their share of those, but that's called supporting your console with versatile content. There is a market for the God of Wars of the world, so why shouldn't they supply it? I really do not see how it is a knock against these companies to have those games, especially when it is clear that they have games that are not like that at all. I guarantee you that if third parties actually felt their games could sell on Nintendo consoles, even the ones with "mature" content, they would be on Nintendo consoles. The difference is that third party support is overwhelming superior on the other brands.

I guess I let the talk around me become my reality regarding these consoles. The titles that are the most shocking in terms of violence just seemed to pop out more than the rest and obscure them in my view. Your comment made me think about something that had been in my head for a while. I remember watching some gameplay footage where there were some pretty graphics bloody sequences(like bashing the brains out of someones head) and I just disregarded the game as another bloody fancy people had. But your comment made me question that. I sniffed around and saw some people being disturbed about the violence and players saying that it was indeed extremely violent, but that it added to the story in a way. I let my preconceived notions get in the way of thinking clearly about it and without having the full picture, it led me to spout this nice little rant. I'm someone that tries to keep an open mind when it comes to thing and you made me realize that it was awfully closed when it came to this particular topic. So thank you for making me take the moment to look at my actions :)

Regarding Nintendo's system, I've seen some pretty contradictory accounts regarding its potential. On one hands, you have tons of developpers saying its crap and on the other hand, you have some devs saying it can be surprisingly powerful. I remember reading somewhere a comparison between that the Wii U has the ability to push out more power than its given credit for, but that it needs more effort than other consoles. And here is where I think Nintendo has work to do. When the released the console they talked about their 3rd party games, but some reports from devs said that what drove them away from the console is Nintendo's secretive attitude toward their consoles. Nintendo has shown that it knows how to use its consoles to their fullest, but they don't share that knowledge with 3rd-parties which drives them away while Sony and Miscrosoft are ready to answer most of their questions.

I still feel that Nintendo's console is better on a multiple of points, but they have definitely failed in marketing their console both to the public and the devs.

[Magical CC]

The concentration many game companies spend on graphic really get on my nerves. Most of the current games are only about how beautiful it looks. I cried when I read reviews about Dragon Age and how original it is. For God's shake, it's just Neverwinter Night 2's 2.0 with graphic update, nothing else. Actually, I am amused by how unoriginal Bioware can be when it come to making games. Same formula, same character type, same plot, same quests, just replace a sword with a laser rifle and they rack a ton of money out of the stupid lambs. It's funny when most of the so-called "professional" reviewers critic the lack of innovation of Japanese games while most of the western games are even worse in the term of "innovation". I fail to see how come IGN, gamespot and some other review sites give stupid games such as GoW, Darksiders or...Prototype when these games are just so lackluster.

How are games being dumbed down?

I think games are not being dumbed down a lot. But some of them do. I can name plenty of them, Elderscrolls, X-com, RE, Silent Hill, SRW, Front Mission, Dragon Age..v...v..And these are just the series that dumbs down slowly. Many new games are just pure dumb right from the start. I dont know why, but the lack of RTS or TBS and the high amount of shooting games, action games and...lack-luster RPGs are just...intriguing. There are only a...handful of RTS games that are not freaking bad or actually fun to play.

However, the biggest thing I dont like about this generation is how popular social and mini games are. I mean, I dont understand why some people can spend their whole night for game like...flappy bird or clash of clan. Some of my friends can be called "Candy Crush" cultist. They play nothing but Candy Crush or some stupid games on facebook.

Edited February 28, 2014 by Char

[Lord Raven]

I don't ever blame people for playing mobile games; they're simple, never ending, and incredibly convenient. I don't do it myself because I get bored really quickly but it's something I can definitely understand.

[Nobody]

Yeah the hate mobile games get by "hardcore gamers" is ridiculous. They are aimed at a different demographics, that want simple yet addicting games. Nothing wrong with them at all, and those games can co-exist with more complex console/PC ones.

[Lord Glenn]

Honestly, I feel like "hate" for mobile games really stems from the fact that companies are diverting their resources into pumping them out, possibly even at the expense of their other offerings. (And, also doing it with established yet idle franchises, effectively "killing" them - see Breath of Fire, etc.)

And, honestly, when you think about it, the companies that are doing it are just going to end up shooting themselves in the foot one day. Just like with the Wii or any of the big mobile hits, the target audience will eventually move on to whatever is the next new shiny thing (be it a new piece of tech or the new hot app) - the entire mobile market is dominated by a few huge titles with a bunch of stuff just trying to float in the water, and eventually something new comes out and everyone latches on to it for the next 6-12 months before repeating the process. Eventually, something new will come around, and people's attention will be drawn away from smartphone gaming, and the market will crumble. And, as you would expect from the strip-mining corporations, they see lots of money cropping up in places, think they stand a chance of grabbing that same amount of money, and heavily invest, not realizing the actual situation at hand - just as Nintendo is experiencing right now. (Not that Nintendo was "strip-mining" with the Wii, just that they haven't realized the situation that all of the "casual" market has moved on to the new "in" thing.)

Edited February 28, 2014 by Lord Glenn

[Ike-Mike]

(Not that Nintendo was "strip-mining" with the Wii, just that they haven't realized the situation that all of the "casual" market has moved on to the new "in" thing.)

This is the most irritating and least true gamer myth.

I bet you thought SEGA was 'catching lightning in a bottle' during their 16-bit days, too!

[Zera]

I've talked about this earlier in that monstrosity of a thread after seeing a few videos, but I decided to make a thread on this here. With all the bullshit going on during the previous one (and early on this one) such as

• Bullshit costly DLC (on-disc DLC, content that really should have been in the final product, etc.)
• Micro Transactions (especially in non-F2P games)
• Other ways companies have nickeled and dimed consumers such as online passes, shady pricing models, etc.
• Releasing broken games with patches the next day or week or so
• More focus on graphics and other secondary stuff before gameplay or mechanics
• Unprofessional antics (like how Capcom cancelled Megaman Legends 3 for no good reason, EA rushing their developers, etc)
• Dumbing down of games, making them easier, making them more casual-friendly, relying on nostalgic references, etc so companies can get more $$$
• etc.

And the fact that many (not all) people defended (or had no issue with) most of the above doesn't help. Because of this, numerous gaming companies have gotten comfortable with the nonsense they do and will continue to do it.

I want to see what you think though.

Boy, have I got the game for YOU!

[spoiler=A game with NONE of the issues you described!]

Your final point has much merit on Nintendo games, especially 3DS titles like Super Mario 3D Land and The Legend of Zelda: A Link Between Worlds.

They were good, but they relied too much on nostalgia, and not enough on providing challenge and content to fulfill the $40 price tag.

When I buy a game for $40, it better be 40 hours long. Or at least 30. Or even 25. 20 hours - including all "replay value" - simply doesn't cut it.

[Constable Reggie]

I think games are not being dumbed down a lot. But some of them do. I can name plenty of them, Elderscrolls, X-com, RE, Silent Hill, SRW, Front Mission, Dragon Age..v...v..And these are just the series that dumbs down slowly. Many new games are just pure dumb right from the start. I dont know why, but the lack of RTS or TBS and the high amount of shooting games, action games and...lack-luster RPGs are just...intriguing. There are only a...handful of RTS games that are not freaking bad or actually fun to play.

What's the difference between dumbing down and streamlining to you? Because the original X-coms are stupidly needlessly complex, and EU streamlining several of the elements from the original can arguably make it a more enjoyable experience. At least, it did for me. Also wot on exs like Dragon Age and Silent Hill. Arguably less well designed =/= dumbing down

When I buy a game for $40, it better be 40 hours long. Or at least 30. Or even 25. 20 hours - including all "replay value" - simply doesn't cut it.

I'd rather pay much more for games like Spec Ops than something like FFXIII. If a game is well made, it shouldn't matter how long a playthrough + extra content clocks in at. A short and very sweet 4 hour game is far more preferable than a 40 hour game that drags.

[Magical CC]

I'd rather pay much more for games like Spec Ops than something like FFXIII. If a game is well made, it shouldn't matter how long a playthrough + extra content clocks in at. A short and very sweet 4 hour game is far more preferable than a 40 hour game that drags.

If that is the case, then why do you have to buy a 4 hours long game? Just rent it or borrow it from your friend, problem solved. A game doesnt have to be long. As long as it is good, it's fine. Being long or having replay value or having multiplayer option are just bonus. However, it doesnt mean you have to throw your money at the screen without thinking.

And also, being streamlining is totally different from being more simple and being more stupid. For example, Skyrim. I can understand why you dont have to learn acrobatic or running since you can fast travel between the places. It's great, it's a rare "streamline is better" case. However, there is no excuse about making the dungeons a lot more simple and linear since I can go from A to B, to C, to D, and to W without even trying. This is a common "streamline is stupid" case example in that game. The same goes for X-Com.

And about Dragon Age. Dragon Age didnt improved anything but graphics since Bioware's Baldur's Gate. It's a lot more simple and stupid with the cliché and generic story, plot, characters and villains. The only improved thing in Dragon Age's gameplay is it's a lot faster and less frustrating but it also make the game a lot like a hack&slash with almost no-brainer gameplay even in hard mode which of course, being "more streamline" than the old games. Many elements like crafting, character relations, story pace are just poor copy of the old games. Sometimes, I dont understand why they bother to these things to the game at all when they are all done with a half-ass attempt. And do I even have to tell you about Dragon Age 2? That PoS can smash a cute kitty and turn it into a grumpy cat. For short, Dragon Age is a dumped down version of Bioware's old games and Dragon Age 2 is...what it is, a PoS. Less well designed = worse designed. Worse designed = worse gaming experience. Worse gaming experience = worse game. Worse game that appeals mass amount of kids = dumbing down.

Edited March 1, 2014 by Char

[Zera]

I'd rather pay much more for games like Spec Ops than something like FFXIII. If a game is well made, it shouldn't matter how long a playthrough + extra content clocks in at. A short and very sweet 4 hour game is far more preferable than a 40 hour game that drags.

So, you want a sweet 4 hour game? In that case...

Boy, have I got the game for YOU!

[spoiler=Yes, it's true]

HOWEVER...There is an inherent flaw in your argument. Any 4 hour game legitimately worth $40-$50 would have to be so fun that you would want to replay it over and over again anyway. Sin and Punishment 2 can be cleared in 4 hours, but that game has nearly infinite replay value.

The simple fact is that any game's quality can be directly measured by how many hours you played it, versus how much you paid. This doesn't always work though. For example, I played a lot of Final Fantasy III on the DS, but many of those hours were filled with tedious level grinding. Those hours don't count, only the FUN hours. With how many times I've replayed S&P2, I've definitely played over 50 hours by now. Not because I had to - but because I wanted to.

[Constable Reggie]

Because a) I like to support games that prioritize quality over quantity, and b) the supposed "replay value" comes from playing it over and over again because it's that fun/compelling. Not exactly throwing money at a screen, is it.

I haven't played any of the Elder Scroll games so I can't comment on those. You didn't bring up a single example for X-com, which is the series that I am familiar with (and the one I refuted, not Elder Scrolls). The only thing I can possibly think of is the lack of base invasions, which was rectified in EW.

Several things you rain on about DA is extremely subjective, particularly every story aspect. A lot of elements in Dragon Age are more robust than games like KotoR, supposedly considered one of Bioware's best.

I also happen to actually like DA2 more than Origins, partially for reasons mentioned here.

HOWEVER...There is an inherent flaw in your argument. Any 4 hour game legitimately worth $40-$50 would have to be so fun that you would want to replay it over and over again anyway. Sin and Punishment 2 can be cleared in 4 hours, but that game has nearly infinite replay value.

I know about this, but Char is talking about replay value in the sense of things like alternate paths or extra options and shit. A legitimately great game (I'm not talking about just in the sense of "fun") doesn't need bells and whistles to justify its price point.

Edited March 1, 2014 by Constable Reggie

[Ike-Mike]

I'd rather Nintendo games to acknowledge and appreciate their roots, which gamers are falsely interpreting as "relying on nostalgia," instead of outright denying them like in the N64 and Gamecube days.

Edited March 1, 2014 by Ike-Mike

[Magical CC]

Because a) I like to support games that prioritize quality over quantity, and b) the supposed "replay value" comes from playing it over and over again because it's that fun/compelling. Not exactly throwing money at a screen, is it.

I haven't played any of the Elder Scroll games so I can't comment on those. You didn't bring up a single example for X-com, which is the series that I am familiar with (and the one I refuted, not Elder Scrolls). The only thing I can possibly think of is the lack of base invasions, which was rectified in EW.

Several things you rain on about DA is extremely subjective, particularly every story aspect. A lot of elements in Dragon Age are more robust than games like KotoR, supposedly considered one of Bioware's best.

I also happen to actually like DA2 more than Origins, partially for reasons mentioned here.

I know about this, but Char is talking about replay value in the sense of things like alternate paths or extra options and shit. A legitimately great game (I'm not talking about just in the sense of "fun") doesn't need bells and whistles to justify its price point.

Dont give me the crap that is called "Base Defend" in EW. It's not like the base defend I knew and liked. You have no control over it. And KotoR, ...Bioware's best!? I spit on that game. The first moment I touched that game, it screamed "LAME CLONE" at my face. It's similar to that...Starwar RTS which is a shameless copy of AoE II. At least, I didnt run into any game stopping bug. So, you know a lot about Dragon Age and Bioware's old games? So do I. Tell me, which elements in Dragon Age are more robust than Bioware's other games?

And also, tell me which elements in Dragon Age are more robust than Dragon Age II. This is why the game sucks ass:

_Lame lame lame time skip. Out of nowhere. They skip the story each time a chapter is finished. Why cant I choose my patch instead of heading to the path the game chosed for me at the start of each chapter? For once, I want to kill that bitch and take over her smuggler bands and take over the city. Where is the option? Oh, it's in the time skip. How fun! Oh, and after many years, I still look the same. My favorite dwarf still looks the same. The city still look the same. Basically, nothing change, only time. I wish it was like that in real life. I wish my sister was 8 years old girl since she will never grow up and stay cute for such a long time.

_The lack of variety in enemy types. From these...corrupted things, the sister of whatever, the bandit dwarf to the pirates, they all fight and die with no variety at all, save very few enemies that you will likely never encounter more than once. Who I have just killed? I dont even know, they look all the same. I heard the hard mode is very hard, too bad, I cant spend a single more hour for that game.

_Typical character types, even Varric character type has been used before. As least, it's good kind. Other characters....bland and lame are the only things I can describe them. Bad girl, naive elf (a wing elf or an alien with 3 fingers, your call), harsh elf, badass dwarf, stoic warrior (too many, cant count)...some are Bioware's only which only made it worse. Even worse since some of the girls have similar love process.

_Typical story pace. You have a grand mission. You mess around doing pointless stuffs, then you do the main missions to archive that grand mission. You do companion missions in the mix. Then, to some points, you come to a no return point, you choose who you stick with and who you dont, if you are good, then you will lose no companion. Then you kick the boss, the end. Sorry but I have done this when I was a kid.

_ Simple and boring gameplay. Hack&Slash with your right mouse, press button to perform skills. Oh, now that I mention it, Dragon Age does have a good way to control how your companion fight! Now that is a great innovation! And it's funny because the way Dragon Age handles companion controling is not simple at all. Enemies pour over your party from all sides, kill them all, then wait and kill another wave to finish the fight. That's Diablo II, battlenet edition. You got missions, you go to a place, do that mission. Then, some years later, you go to the same place for other missions. Only this time, the door opened last time is now close. And that is how you play for the rest of the game. It's god damn boring and repeative and suck and....forget it! I nearly vomit just by how many times I have to return to a same place and kill same thing over and over and over again. And I cried over the fight with that horny qunari....if only the fight was at least half awesome like in the trailer...if only. But all you get is the crow of nobles, a small hall and a fight with no brainer tactic. Then, they dont even allow you to hang his head in your house either. How sad!

_You cannot customize or choose many things in the game. Is that my house? No, because I rarely spend time at it. I buy in the time skip. And I cant decorate it or do many awesome things with it. It's called my house because the game told me so. The talk options...oh god, cant I pick a neutral option that help me avoid dire sequence? At least, it's not like you can do many things in Dragon Age. There are the good, there are the ugly, how about the bad? Where is the neutral between the chaotic and lawful ops?

_I will not say a single word about the graphic since I am not into beautiful but suck ass game. However, this game has none. You can expect more from a free action game like this.

I know about this, but Char is talking about replay value in the sense of things like alternate paths or extra options and shit. A legitimately great game (I'm not talking about just in the sense of "fun") doesn't need bells and whistles to justify its price point.

Can it be really called a great game without well design, replay value and multiplayer option? Only one answer: No. Even your so precious Spec Ops has these extra options and shit. How terrible! No, really, you dont know anything about this.

Edited March 1, 2014 by Char

[Constable Reggie]

No need to get pissy.

Can it be really called a great game without well design, replay value and multiplayer option? Only one answer: No. Even your so precious Spec Ops has these extra options and shit. How terrible! No, really, you dont know anything about this.

Spec Ops' multiplayer was an active detriment to the game, and was better off left unrecognized (which everyone, including the game's developers, did). The game was all about the single player campaign, and the only supposed "replay value" gimmick it had was difficulty options, which is par for the course for most every game. The real replay value came from playing the game over and over again because a) the story is so damn good, b) the gameplay (in how it relates to the story) is so damn good, and c) it is just so damn good.

Did you just say that KotoR is a shameless copy of Age of Empires 2? Huh, we must have played completely different KotoRs. But if you're one of the few people that apparently absolutely despises KotoR, then we'll get nowhere, cause that's the only "old" Bioware game I've played.

Your ranting over DA2 is just that: incomprehensible ranting. Not sure exactly how to refute something like that, so I'll stick with what I thought was good about the game, and why I liked it better than Origins (didn't say it was necessarily a better game).

-You can play with auto attack on, did you know that? Yeah.

-The skill system was for more enjoyable and satisfying than Origins'. This, tied with the combat's faster nature, made for more thrilling fights, at the cost of planning (waves were a big issue).

-The main character being voiced helped entice me into the story more than Origins', despite the fact that it limited options and was arguable of worse quality.

-The game felt more focused and tightened, which I preferred over Origin's 80 hour romp.

-The art direction is absolutely fantastic in this game. The game really makes it its own thing, unlike Origin's rather generic aesthetic.

That isn't to say that there's big problems with the game, but for these reasons I enjoyed DA2 more. If they fixed issues like wave spawns and lazy map design, DA2 would have easily been the better game in every way except story. And if you still scream "dumbing down for the casuals"? Then go back and play your Baldur's Gates and Age of Empire 2's (?). They're not going anywhere.

[Superbus]

Forgive me if I haven't followed the thread at large, but I have to respond to the notion that this will be "the worst" generation of gaming.

It's a noxious notion, because people who think that are only judging based on the games that they can see at GameStop. They're judging wholly on AAA. In that realm, things aren't nice. Online-only games that lose their capabilities the moment the hosting company - who won't allow servers, of course - deem it no longer financially valid (and this ins't just EA, Nintendo just effectively killed Dragon Quest IX), DRM on PC games, everyone wanting you to install *their* Steam-like software to play their games, even on Steam (Ubisoft's UPlay and EA's Origin), and the fact that every game is basically the same stupid shit over and over... yeah. AAA sucks. Even analysts are saying that. And on the other end of that spectrum is the freemium, pay-to-win garbage. The less said about that mess, the better.

But have you even looked at the indie scene? What about the wonderful software on the 3DS? The increasingly nice software on the Vita, most of which can be had for free via PS+? Unless you're into sports games - at which point, you either like Football Manager or you're basically EA's bitch - then you have an embarrassment of riches. Like Fire Emblem? There's a cool Steam game called Unity of Command that was just 75% off. SRPGs in general? There are two new Shadowrun campaigns out, they're $15 each. Racing games? Sonic Transformed and ModNation Racers Road Tour are free on PS+ if you own a Vita, and Little Racers STREET is less than $7. Into retro? Double Dragon Neon was just released for Steam for $10, and I think the PS3 game is free on Plus. All that, and I've still spent less than I would h ave for that shitty new Castlevania game.

I have a Steam library of 500+ games. The vast majority of them were well less than $60, most of them below $30. My average purchase is about $10, maybe less due to sales. Even PSN is getting good with sales - check out this week's amazing list - so unless you only want to play the big games, the amazing games are out there, they're not expensive, and they provide hours of fun and are constantly updated.

By the way, since you all are talking about it: I believe Spec Ops is still free on PSN.

[eclipse]

Different strokes for different folks. Sheesh, not everyone shares the same idea of fun! That being said, I kind of welcome the slightly simpler maps - my sense of direction is bad enough, and getting lost trying to find someplace-or-other was pretty frustrating (don't get me started on FF6 and my inability to find several places).

[Ike-Mike]

But have you even looked at the indie scene?

It is jarring though how 'indie' has practically become the catch-all term for 'anything that isn't AAA or on dedicated handhelds.'

Though the working conditions inside those indie studios are similiar to your usual gaming studio from even just a decade ago, except they have the means to release it outside of the bigger publishers now.

And while I was watching Twich Plays Pokémon, I was thinking that if Red and Blue were released and Pokémania broke out today instead, it would be hailed as an indie gaming sensation.

[Magical CC]

Did you just say that KotoR is a shameless copy of Age of Empires 2? Huh, we must have played completely different KotoRs. But if you're one of the few people that apparently absolutely despises KotoR, then we'll get nowhere, cause that's the only "old" Bioware game I've played.

No...? I mean KotoR is a shameless copy of Bioware's old games just like how Starwars Galactic Battlegrounds is a shameless copy of AoE II. And wait....KotoR is the only "old" Bioware game you've played? Then you know shit. Before you open your mouth again, play the god damn game. I suggest both 1&2. Or play any game with the same genres that is not necessary to be ones of Bioware's games.

-You can play with auto attack on, did you know that? Yeah.

-The skill system was for more enjoyable and satisfying than Origins'. This, tied with the combat's faster nature, made for more thrilling fights, at the cost of planning (waves were a big issue).

-The main character being voiced helped entice me into the story more than Origins', despite the fact that it limited options and was arguable of worse quality.

-The game felt more focused and tightened, which I preferred over Origin's 80 hour romp.

-The art direction is absolutely fantastic in this game. The game really makes it its own thing, unlike Origin's rather generic aesthetic.

_Auto attack? What does that solve with repeating shit that kept being thrown at my face? Yeah? I could be happy if there is a "quick resolve" option like the one in Heroes of Might and Magic. Or just give me an auto play option so I can eat pizza in peace.

_Thrilling what? With same few skills over and over? With same enemies over and over? With same scenarios over and over? For such a long game? Faster combat nature? You mean the dumped down gameplay which allows you to play with your brain shut? It's a hack&slash with 4 people in a limited place with few tactics involved. The actions are so limited that it is not even can be considered as a hack&slash game. Some skills are just copy&paste of the others with some minor changes to the stats. You can expect more than that from a fast action game.

_It helped you because...the main character has voice? For serious? And you prefer voice over good and large options of choices? You intend to make me laugh? Where is your imaginary when you play the game? The voice of the main character belongs no one but yours. It's called ROLE PLAYING GAME for a reason. This sucks.

_Of all things, focused and tightened? What the hell are you even talking about? The story you mean? It was just lame, boring and broken. Time skip, nothing change. Time skip, where is the profits from my mine? Time skip, oh so it's a dragon after all. Time skip, so you do nothing in the past few years, you didnt bother looking for the mysterious murderer? What the hell? It's like you try to cover a giant black hole with a duct tape.

_Art direction? What art direction? The design of the house, the city and the new uniform for the everyone save the qunary are lame! I havent seen such a a boring city since Oblivion. You mean character design? Oh, all of your companions, save Varrick, have such a boring, generic design that I bet it only took Bioware 5 minutes to come up with. Do I have to mention how some of the armors are nothing but the old armor but with new colors? Some of the rest are just the old clothes with some new accessories. Praise the lazy ass designers! You may actually like the bland design of that gay ass white hair elf? Did I mention how low pixel was Aveline? The first time I look her, I didnt believe my eyes. It's like she belongs to some games from like...5 years ago in both the term of art design and graphic? Praising Dragon Age 2's art is like insulting the word "art". The only things that look fine are the thing that has been done in Dragon Age. The good ones are old, the new ones are bad. That's how it is. Oh wait, Flemeth does look sexy for an old hag (or I should say, old dragon).

There, I have just crushed your statements. And you couldnt break any of my previous statements in my previous posts. You just randomly picked things you think you can blab about without addressing everything I said. Your words are weak. Your argument is as hard as Snoop Dogg's rapping. Unless you can come up with something good, dont even bother to post. You still have: lame time skip, typical characters, repeating gameplay, repeating enemies, typical story pace, the lack of choice options, the lack of customize options and now, the lame art and graphic. Basically, everything is still there, waiting for you to break.

Edited March 2, 2014 by Char