[adolf625]

Bloodborne, I am at level 72 now and the game still slaughters me in places.

[ge∅]

I've "played" the first two episodes of Life Is Strange. It's not mind blowing but I like the mood.

[alapee]

Hopefully around October my game collection will expand, we are moving back to a house we own instead of renting for 1K a month.

[Damage]

Started up pillars of eternity. Got old school rpg feeling and it's totally awesome! ...games kicking my ass tho

[depricated]

I want to get that, it's supposed to be modeled after Baldur's Gate

[ge∅]

Wow, I could have missed this one. Thanks Damage.

How is the story ? I maybe was a bit impressionable when I played games like Planescape Torment back in the days, but I find very hard to reach the same level of excitement today. Even Divinity Original Sin, which sounded very promising (and was very enjoyable to play), didn't hook me until the end. There must be two hours of gameplay left and I don't feel driven by the story any more. A bit like Dragon Age Origins : I never felt the need to go ahead and actually kill the archdemon.

[Damage]

Personally, i'm enjoying the story, played like 2 hours ( had to restart because the insane mode..,. well it was fucking insane, the mobs get stat buffs and extra characters), so i can't comment the size of the game but the detail so far feels like enough to get my buy in to the story (random snippets of conversation, readable history books etc) but not so much that i stop caring, a lot like baldurs gate. My main concern so far is that you can hire a crew of tailor made sidekicks (you literally set them up the same way you make your main character). I haven't done this yet but it's a temptation

Dragon age inquisition is still my stand-out for recent games. The amount of available gameplay in that one made it totally worth the money. I think i got over 100 hours out of it and even then i didn't do all the quests

This post has been edited by Damage: 30 April 2015 - 05:03 PM

[ge∅]

Do you need to have played through Dragon Age 2 to enjoy Dragon Age Inquisition ?

[alapee]

I have been distracted by Clicker Heroes @ www.clickerheroes.com.........................something about this game.

[rgfirefly24]

I've been playing through Path of Exile, which I would say is how Diablo should have been done. It's also free which is always appealing. Also, older news but I just found out that Microsoft is making fable legends Free to play, and not going with the Pay to win microtransaction model. I wrote off Fable Legends when it was first introduced because I really didn't want to pay for a game where I was forced into Multi-player in order to play the game, but if they are offering it free then I'll give it a go. The model they are using 4 heroes vs 1 foe seems very familiar though, but I just cannot place where I've seen that model before.

[Damage]

@ geo, maybe, having the background from all the other games (yup theres references in there from them all) certainly helps provide context

[depricated]

rgfirefly24, on 01 May 2015 - 07:37 AM, said:

I've been playing through Path of Exile, which I would say is how Diablo should have been done. It's also free which is always appealing. Also, older news but I just found out that Microsoft is making fable legends Free to play, and not going with the Pay to win microtransaction model. I wrote off Fable Legends when it was first introduced because I really didn't want to pay for a game where I was forced into Multi-player in order to play the game, but if they are offering it free then I'll give it a go. The model they are using 4 heroes vs 1 foe seems very familiar though, but I just cannot place where I've seen that model before.

I quite enjoyed Path of Exile. It's well done. Definitely what Diablo 3 should have been. I'm not too impressed with the presence of a cash shop, but they don't make it pay to win, just pay to win faster - or at least that was the case 2 years ago. And I can get behind that - there's a difference between paywalling something and just making it easier to get.

[ge∅]

I still don't get why people prefer to pay for extras instead of paying for the game: creating a game is difficult and it is only fair to reward the people who worked on it and put money on the table. Why should any part of a game be free at all?

It's because people want everything for free that bad practices emerge. At the end of the day it's not free, it can even be more expensive than buying a game, but because this practice is becoming popular, more and more games are only playable online and less and less games are actually your property because, even when you pay, you pay for a licence of use that can expire unilaterally at any time. And you're hooked because part of the game is hosted on a server anyway : it is by design impossible to play offline and it is programmed to be impossible to play at all when the company closes the servers. When I put Streets of Rage in my Megadrive it still works!

If you don't want to be forced into multi-player, don't play free to play games. You're only making this business model valid.

[depricated]

ge∅, on 04 May 2015 - 06:28 AM, said:

I still don't get why people prefer to pay for extras instead of paying for the game: creating a game is difficult and it is only fair to reward the people who worked on it and put money on the table. Why should any part of a game be free at all?

Excellent use of prejudicial language there champ. Is that why you never made the cut for the debate team?

[ge∅]

Of all the arguments given in this post I can't believe you question this one. It's hardcoded in my brain : unless you're involved in a charity or something you don't work for free and you don't take risks for free. When you work, you get a reward.

And of course no company will make games completely for free, they will get their reward one way or the other, and if you choose not to take it the one way, you will take it from behind.

I don't understand what is fallacious in this argument. pay to win games speak for themselves.

This post has been edited by ge∅: 04 May 2015 - 06:17 AM