You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 11, 2016, 06:03:51 AM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: What WOULD you be playing?  (Read 3086 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Kelly♥

Re: What WOULD you be playing?
« Reply #25 on: January 25, 2010, 07:36:45 PM »
Dead or Alive 5. Rumours about it being multi-platform as well. /Fingers-crossed.

Offline Destiny Ascension

Re: What WOULD you be playing?
« Reply #26 on: January 25, 2010, 09:10:02 PM »
Mass Effect 2 and Dragon Age if my video card hadn't shit itself as of 2 hours ago >: (

Offline Slywyn

Re: What WOULD you be playing?
« Reply #27 on: January 25, 2010, 09:14:25 PM »
*couldn't help but giggle* That sucks. >.<

Offline SabbyTopic starter

Re: What WOULD you be playing?
« Reply #28 on: February 19, 2010, 11:48:37 AM »
Possession... its pretty much dead, but it'd nice to have an official cancelation.

Offline Samael

  • † My heart is dead, it's way past beating †
  • Lord
  • Seducer
  • *
  • Join Date: Oct 2008
  • Location: ¥ At the edge of the city of forever ¥
  • Gender: Male
  • ‡ Hündlekätzle Jäger ‡
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: What WOULD you be playing?
« Reply #29 on: February 19, 2010, 05:48:38 PM »
Delayed? No updates? Unannounced? Games we want can linger too far away :( discuss whats bugging you here.

Right now, I'm on edge for Bloodrayne 3. It was assumed to not be in developement, even though Terminal Reality were all wet for a current gen BR game. Now, their Infernal Engine has suddenly gotten bigger then Unreal 3, and they're rolling in the dough.

...and yet, no ones saying anything!! D= spill guys! Want BR3 announced v.v

I really loved Bloodrayne 1. The story, the characters, the weapons, the bullet time, etc, -everything-. But Bloodrayne 2 was, imho, one heck of a mess. The controls weren't as tight anymore, unnecessary moves were thrown in, and the story was just weird... I'd buy a BR 3 though.

Offline SabbyTopic starter

Re: What WOULD you be playing?
« Reply #30 on: February 19, 2010, 11:30:46 PM »
I liked the new combat in BR2, and the new modern goth setting. Story wasn't that bad, just needed a lil more meat to it. Was too straightforward and didn't have any real twists to it. The guns they threw in could have been fun, but draining enemies for ammo wasn't too well balanced... you'd have to go through several fights filling your guns and forsaking special moves that give health or mana boosts just to have enough ammo to handle a single gunfight.

Ya gotta admit, the finisher moves were friggen brutal :) Rayne would make a great guest character for a Mortal Kombat game.

Offline Xenophile

Re: What WOULD you be playing?
« Reply #31 on: February 20, 2010, 11:09:58 AM »
If I could get NecronvisioN: Lost Company to work properly, I'd play it.

I'm a sucker for games that feature wars that aren't that represented in the gaming industry. Not to mention paranormal shit in said wars.

Offline PaleEnchantress

Re: What WOULD you be playing?
« Reply #32 on: February 20, 2010, 11:21:51 AM »
It feels like i've been waiting an eternity for Disciples 3.

Offline SabbyTopic starter

Re: What WOULD you be playing?
« Reply #33 on: February 20, 2010, 11:59:39 AM »
Never heard of that one... guessing it was announced but went quiet?

Isn't Necronvision a 'bad rip off of Painkiller?'

Thats another to add to my list... Painkiller 2. Hurry up, damn it! Want to shoot zombiefied bikers off their hogs with dynamite strapped tree trunk sized crossbow bolts xD

Offline SabbyTopic starter

Re: What WOULD you be playing?
« Reply #34 on: April 18, 2011, 04:15:23 AM »
Thread Necromancy rules!

Elveon is my current gripe... went silent years ago, no official cancellation.

Offline CmdrRenegade

Re: What WOULD you be playing?
« Reply #35 on: April 18, 2011, 09:43:26 PM »
This may not count, but I'll say it anyway.  A campaign of Dark Heresy, Rogue Trader, or Deathwatch on a tabletop.  I can't though because people are shit and have such a hard time showing up even once a month. 
« Last Edit: April 18, 2011, 10:06:11 PM by CmdrRenegade »

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: What WOULD you be playing?
« Reply #36 on: April 18, 2011, 09:49:08 PM »
I liked the new combat in BR2, and the new modern goth setting. Story wasn't that bad, just needed a lil more meat to it. Was too straightforward and didn't have any real twists to it. The guns they threw in could have been fun, but draining enemies for ammo wasn't too well balanced... you'd have to go through several fights filling your guns and forsaking special moves that give health or mana boosts just to have enough ammo to handle a single gunfight.

Ya gotta admit, the finisher moves were friggen brutal :) Rayne would make a great guest character for a Mortal Kombat game.

Two words for why you'll not be seeing a BR3 I think.. Uwe Boll.

Offline consortium11

Re: What WOULD you be playing?
« Reply #37 on: April 19, 2011, 01:15:21 AM »
Van Buren and the current legal dispute wracked Fallout Online.

I sort of got my Van Buren fix with New Vegas but it was a pale imitation of what could have been.

Baldur's Gate 3 got mooted at one stage but as Neverwinter Nights was also being talked about I don't think there was ever much hope.

Online Inkidu

  • E's Resident Girlomancer, Dedicated Philogynist, The Compartive of a Superlative, SLG's Sammich Life-Giver
  • Lord
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Jul 2008
  • Location: In a staring contest with the Void.
  • Gender: Male
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: What WOULD you be playing?
« Reply #38 on: April 19, 2011, 10:05:03 AM »
Van Buren and the current legal dispute wracked Fallout Online.

I sort of got my Van Buren fix with New Vegas but it was a pale imitation of what could have been.

That seems like one of those gamer traps. One, Van Buren was never released. So, how do you know it would even be good to begin with? Two, you're comparing a game that, for all its bugs, is released, is making money,  has done well for itself, and is very fun to play for the average buyer. I guess no developer can ever compete with how good something would be in a fan's mind.

I would so want to play Deus Ex: Human Revolution right now. I can't believe it was pushed back four months for the esoteric "no-kill" runs. Really, four months?

Offline Hemingway

Re: What WOULD you be playing?
« Reply #39 on: April 19, 2011, 10:11:59 AM »
The World of Darkness MMO. I'm not really more excited about that than The Old Republic, but it's more ... nebulous.

Online Inkidu

  • E's Resident Girlomancer, Dedicated Philogynist, The Compartive of a Superlative, SLG's Sammich Life-Giver
  • Lord
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Jul 2008
  • Location: In a staring contest with the Void.
  • Gender: Male
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: What WOULD you be playing?
« Reply #40 on: April 19, 2011, 10:16:27 AM »
The World of Darkness MMO. I'm not really more excited about that than The Old Republic, but it's more ... nebulous.
Yeah, I'm not going to hold my breath on MMORPGs. They'll all end up the same way underneath I'm sure. A few gimmicks here and there. The problem is that MMORPGs are a really cornered market.

1. W.O.W. has the corner, and developers want to make money. So, they copy W.O.W. Not good.
2. They try something truly new, innovative, and fun to play. However, since your average MMORPG is a time-consuming process most people don't split their time between them. So it flounders under W.O.W.

Offline consortium11

Re: What WOULD you be playing?
« Reply #41 on: April 19, 2011, 04:42:06 PM »
That seems like one of those gamer traps. One, Van Buren was never released. So, how do you know it would even be good to begin with? Two, you're comparing a game that, for all its bugs, is released, is making money,  has done well for itself, and is very fun to play for the average buyer. I guess no developer can ever compete with how good something would be in a fan's mind.

The tech demo was eventually released meaning we know basically what the game looked and played like. In addition the design documents were also released meaning we could also read almost the entire plot, game structure, game mechanics and assorted other details. Assuming Black Isle didn't completely screw it up (and they have a very good reputation in that regard... I can't think of too many duds they released, especially sequels) it was all lined up to be a damn good game. The fact that Beth handed development over to Obsidian (who are essentially the key players of that Black Isle/Interplay/Bioware era without the quality control) for New Vegas... who in turn put in about as much of Van Buren as could be worked into the Fallout 3 canon and engine in the game also indicates that Beth themselves think the game would have been worth something.

I would so want to play Deus Ex: Human Revolution right now. I can't believe it was pushed back four months for the esoteric "no-kill" runs. Really, four months?/quote]

I think I'd prefer they spent the time getting it right rather than rush it out (as Invisible War showed). Personally I found the no-kill runs, especially on the harder difficulty settings, one of the better parts of Deus Ex.

Online Inkidu

  • E's Resident Girlomancer, Dedicated Philogynist, The Compartive of a Superlative, SLG's Sammich Life-Giver
  • Lord
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Jul 2008
  • Location: In a staring contest with the Void.
  • Gender: Male
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: What WOULD you be playing?
« Reply #42 on: April 19, 2011, 04:51:22 PM »
Tech demos are not how "the game is essentially going to play out". Mirror's Edge? The demo promised a lot, but in practice it didn't turn out so great. Don't get me wrong. I'd like to see things like Mirror's Edge get worked on more. Still, you cannot extrapolate reasonably how a game is going to turn out because of its demo. Plenty of games have great demos but turn out lackluster in the end.

And, I just don't think it should take four months to get sorted. Seriously. We're talking about one, maybe two paths where you no kill. Four months makes me worry. It's like they have a bunch of other, more-serious problems and they're using the convenient excuse to get more time.

Offline consortium11

Re: What WOULD you be playing?
« Reply #43 on: April 19, 2011, 06:30:26 PM »
Tech demos are not how "the game is essentially going to play out". Mirror's Edge? The demo promised a lot, but in practice it didn't turn out so great. Don't get me wrong. I'd like to see things like Mirror's Edge get worked on more. Still, you cannot extrapolate reasonably how a game is going to turn out because of its demo. Plenty of games have great demos but turn out lackluster in the end.

Oh, of course... and the tech demo has some serious flaws (combat only being real time... although by the developers own words real time combat was an add-on that Interplay essentially forced them into and the emphasis was always on turn based, the demo has frequent crashes). But when you have a tech demo + the design documents + a competent team making it with an extensive history of making this type of game and a high strike rate + sufficient oversight to check for bugs with the finished product I don't think it's too much of the stretch of the imagination to say that yes the game would have been good and secondly that what did make it into New Vegas (which I enjoyed, big riddled mess or not) was a pale imitation of what could have been.

And, I just don't think it should take four months to get sorted. Seriously. We're talking about one, maybe two paths where you no kill. Four months makes me worry. It's like they have a bunch of other, more-serious problems and they're using the convenient excuse to get more time.

If that's the case then isn't it a good thing that they're finishing it off rather than release a poorly built game?

It's one of the developments I dislike about the modern game industry... that there's seemingly no issue with releasing a game that basically isn't finished, knowing that between patches, DLC and a the mod community the flaws can be corrected and covered up.

Online Inkidu

  • E's Resident Girlomancer, Dedicated Philogynist, The Compartive of a Superlative, SLG's Sammich Life-Giver
  • Lord
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Jul 2008
  • Location: In a staring contest with the Void.
  • Gender: Male
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: What WOULD you be playing?
« Reply #44 on: April 19, 2011, 07:01:44 PM »
Oh, of course... and the tech demo has some serious flaws (combat only being real time... although by the developers own words real time combat was an add-on that Interplay essentially forced them into and the emphasis was always on turn based, the demo has frequent crashes). But when you have a tech demo + the design documents + a competent team making it with an extensive history of making this type of game and a high strike rate + sufficient oversight to check for bugs with the finished product I don't think it's too much of the stretch of the imagination to say that yes the game would have been good and secondly that what did make it into New Vegas (which I enjoyed, big riddled mess or not) was a pale imitation of what could have been.

If that's the case then isn't it a good thing that they're finishing it off rather than release a poorly built game?

It's one of the developments I dislike about the modern game industry... that there's seemingly no issue with releasing a game that basically isn't finished, knowing that between patches, DLC and a the mod community the flaws can be corrected and covered up.
Yeah, but I want to remind the gaming community that delay does not always equal better. Alpha Protocol. Now, I kind of like the game. Your main character is a tool, and it has some glaring technical issues but it got publicized well, it was delayed in October of its original release year, it didn't come out until next year, and it still did poor across the board. I think people should take pride and fix their games, but we hold movies to schedules, authors get put on schedules. What exempts video games from this? If video games want to be held to the same standard as the rest of the media then they're going to have to step up to bat and get some overhand pitches.

Now, I'm not saying that it should be X-date and that's it, but Blizzard taking thirteen plus years to make a game? That's why I'm not a Blizzard fan. Valve takes forever to release a short episode of Half-Life 2. Now, it's episodic. That's so it doesn't take so long to come out. Valve missed that memo.

Developers should have a clear date set and one fall-back date. If they can't get the game done they should release it anyway, and if it's crap... well that just reflects on the developer. I call for more professionalism not in creating games, but in marketing them. I don't care how good a game is if I have to wait thirteen years to play it they can shove it in their own backup drives. I have a life to get on with.

Offline consortium11

Re: What WOULD you be playing?
« Reply #45 on: April 19, 2011, 08:39:52 PM »
Obsidian are in some ways the archetypal example of not releasing a finished game... and if they do it's normally full of bugs. For the first couple of games I basically believed their excuses ("deadline pressure from publishers"... "being too ambitious with what we planned to do") but as time has gone on it's become apparent that as good as they are at designing games they're basically incompetent at putting them together. From KoTOR 2 where basically none of the mini-games work, whole parts had to be cut and the ending was clearly rushed to Alpha Protocol which combines some of the best C+C and dialogue influences in any game (which gives it huge amounts of replay-ability)... but is combined with bugs, sloppy shooting and sneaking game play, horrible game balance and the fact that the sheer amount of C+C collapsed on itself at the end.

I think the problem with Obsidian (as well as a couple of other companies) is when they do delay a game instead of using the time to fix what they already had they instead try to use it to force more stuff in... and then leave it to modders (who are still working on KoTOR 2 all these years later) to sort it out for them.

Online Inkidu

  • E's Resident Girlomancer, Dedicated Philogynist, The Compartive of a Superlative, SLG's Sammich Life-Giver
  • Lord
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Jul 2008
  • Location: In a staring contest with the Void.
  • Gender: Male
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: What WOULD you be playing?
« Reply #46 on: April 19, 2011, 11:57:48 PM »
Well, Obsidian is that distant cousin no one likes to admit they know. They are the black sheep of the developing community, but there are other extremes to this. I point again to Blizzard and Valve, and there's no one to blame but the fans really. Because most will blindly follow and wait until after the end of days for the next Blizzard game. Blizzard has been in business twenty years. 13 of which they spent on Starcraft 2 alone. There has to be a point. I think the average number of years for a sequel game is two to three. I would be willing to wait six, but thirteen is simply pushing your fans because you can. Do you really think Heart of the Swarm is coming out in 2012 because they're working on it, or because it's the opportune time to release it for oodles of disposable income. I'm not against a company making their money, but this seems like sheer exploitation to me. It hasn't helped that they were bought up by Activision either. 

I can't imagine this does them any good to bring in new fans (maybe that's why they moved to W.O.W.) seriously some kid sees you playing Starcraft II and he says, "Wow, that's really cool. Do you know where the first one is so I can play it?" Then you have to tell him it's stuck all the way back in 1998. The devotion of fans keeps Blizzard afloat, but 13 year cycles is bad for brand recognition. Everyone says they would like everyone to spend as much time as Blizzard on games, but they don't mean that. They mean we want Blizzard to spend that much time on games. If every game took 13 years to come out then there would be no industry.

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: What WOULD you be playing?
« Reply #47 on: April 20, 2011, 02:19:58 AM »
Plants Vs. Zombies 2.  I should ship the little Oni to Popcap to give them new plant and zombie ideas - she keeps rattling them off all on her own.

Offline Hemingway

Re: What WOULD you be playing?
« Reply #48 on: April 20, 2011, 06:10:11 AM »
Yeah, I'm not going to hold my breath on MMORPGs. They'll all end up the same way underneath I'm sure. A few gimmicks here and there. The problem is that MMORPGs are a really cornered market.

1. W.O.W. has the corner, and developers want to make money. So, they copy W.O.W. Not good.
2. They try something truly new, innovative, and fun to play. However, since your average MMORPG is a time-consuming process most people don't split their time between them. So it flounders under W.O.W.

Yeah, no one is going to make money copying WoW, even if they do it a hundred times better. It's already been done and didn't work. The Old Republic is going to get away with it ( to whatever extent they end up "copying" WoW ), by virtue of being a Bioware product. I mean, there's no way the Old Republic isn't going to be successful.

World of Darkness is probably not going to get any sort of mainstream success. I do hope and believe it'll be popular enough to keep going, though. World of Darkness is sexy.

Offline Jude

Re: What WOULD you be playing?
« Reply #49 on: April 20, 2011, 07:58:22 AM »
I do think people are looking for an alternative to WoW and that The Old Republic could offer that if Bioware chooses to differentiate itself from the WoW formula.  The biggest thing they need to do is create a serious storyline with immersion and emotional involvement.  WoW is far too comical, breaks the fourth wall a lot, and just generally feels outright silly.  I can't imagine WoW ever telling a story with any real depth or emotional resonance.