@Blabadon: I think you're absolutely right. Nintendo has a handheld more powerful this time around, but I do feel they are not much concerned with pushing AAA like games because they are trying to appeal to multiple markets. Hardcore gamers, Nintendo fans and casuals, and also they push the new 3D feature which I love but has to be implemented well into games which take time and resources. I share your opinion that it's game library has a similar air to what the PSP achieved but nothing to push the envelope further that direction. Maybe it will happen in Nintendo's next gen handheld after the 3DS retires too.
@FlamesOfGrey: I completely agree. I remember you when I used to post on the site a while ago, and I always found you in the threads supporting the PSP from haters. Good taste.
@PonchoTaco: how do you define miles better? In my veiew they are different as far as content. DS had a lot more games, specially unique experiences, but it was lacking in core console like games the 3DS and the PSP now have.
As a handheld fanatic, I feel the need to pay tribute to the PSP. I was a truly under-rated system by sw standards last gen. Mostly because of the blind hate from sheep that never had one( as a DS competitor). Though I understand most of that was for sake of fanboy wars. I think the psp finished its live cycle with a very respectable games library and good hardware design overall. Sheep kept hating on the PSP library stating how "console like" games was all it was achieving. Which I find ironic because owing a 3DS now feels a lot like the PSP as far as the types of games on it(minus the glorious 3D, and the Nintendo support of course). So I want to know sw's opinion on the handheld now that it's mostly retired from the spotlight, new gen and all.
On a side note, it feels strange making new topics in the new layout.
This is a topic that has been done to death already, but it's still worth talking about. I think it's amazing, in a personal way, how some games just draw me in and actually make me feel like I'm living in another world. For example, I can play skyrim or a game like forza and be completely into the roles those two different games present you. Whether I'm a wizard, or a race driver, or a pokemon trainer, an average joe surviving armaggedon, I think it's artistic the way games manage to do this. Most people here have had a similar experience like this I'm sure. There's always an argument why gaming should or shouldn't be an art, considering there's a very large global part of the industry that make gaming into a sport for entertainment value. Do you think it's an art or purely entertainment sw?
Now understand that it takes a lot for me to not responde as my regular douchy self, but all that stuff you just said was nothing I argued against Dragon Age. I keep saying, my major beefs probably have more to do with the lack of proper variety in enemies and the poorly thought out encounter designs/level design.
In fact I've even said I'm plenty convinced I have less issues with the battle system itself, and more issues with everything around that game. So um okey dokey for all the stuff you wrote. Yeah I understood the leveling system from your post, and yeah level design for these type of games could use some work.
[QUOTE="FrozenLiquid"][QUOTE="jg4xchamp"] The first witcher wasn't even that good either. Good game not gonna knoc kit, but between the lousy combat, the lame dialogue(apparently a translation issue), and the fetch quest sessions didn't exactly make it exciting or compelling or impressive to play. Frankly a lot of times the game insisted on being a chore. The sequel does that sh1t also to some extent, but it covers its ass this time by having much better done combat. Plus as far as choice and consequences go that game's unmatched this gen save maybe Alpha Protocol, and that game loses its good will because it frankly sucks.
BG was legit I guess in the 90s, but even then Fallout and Planescape had more stuff going for them. I can still tolerate Planescape's short comings. I can't do the same with BG2, but I can understand it's place in RPG lore. And frankly I'd rather both ME2 and 3, because in no way in hell is the original ME a better game. It's only advantage is a better plot, but the rest of that experience is poorly executed across the board. 2 and 3 aren't great shooters by any stretch of the imagination or great works of science fiction, but serviceable and fun enough to be good. The original is just a massive chore.
Dragon Age had worse issues than it's actual combat. The uninspired nature of the game and typical piss poor Bioware level design were a lot worse. jg4xchamp
Damn I remember your thing against RPG combat systems. Now I remember why we had a neutrality box. You have to be on some of the most amazing crack to tell me you enjoyed The Witcher 1's combat. Because on some pretend tactical level, wasn't exactly tactical. Because that's the only game there I knocked for its combat. Not the biggest fan of how Dragon Age does combat itself, but majority of the issues I had with the battle system were more tied to the lame scenarios and level design of that game, and less to do with the actual battle system.
You don't seem to be too fond of RPG combat, which is cool, but other people like myself enjoy it a lot. The leveling part of Dragon Age origins works great because it makes you micro-manage and strategize the way you level up depending on your spezializations and the goals you have for your character. It works great and it's completely separated from the tactical side of combat. A game like origins works well because all the stats, equipment, skills, and AI tactics are all effective under the same system. For example, I can increase a stat like "MAGIC" on my warrior if I wanted to, and it has an effect depending on how I want my party and protagonist to be setup. If I want a team with no magic users, or characters making any fancy potions, I can have a high enough magic stat, or enchanted equipment to make up for the lack of mages in my team. I could end up buying unexpensive health potions with increased potency on my character. A lot of people don't like games like that because they hate numbers or percentages or they hate to micromanage everything, etc. The thing is bioware had a great system for origins that worked well. They had a chance to further develop Origins into something special. Instead, they changed the direction of a lot of things that made Dragon Age work well into something that was inferior(reviews to back it up and everything). I don't think they should get a free pass for that, especially since other developers like SE and Capcom don't.
I think a lot of people here misunderstod what I said. I do think they deserve hate for some stupid choices they made this gen, but I never said I hated the company at all. I never mentioned anything negative about the Mass Effect games, in fact, I agree with the direction they took with it, since it was a RPG/action hybrid from the begining. My main argument was about Dragon Age Origins and the sequal, which are not about Mass Effect. DA:O was a more traditional Bioware game, and I was arguing against its sequals. They tried to Mass Dragon Age 2. They felt they needed to give Dragon Age 2 some influence of Mass Effect when it wasn't even needed as they are different type of games. They dumbed down all the mechanics of the original for the sake of the Mass Effect crowd and they even added the conversation wheel for further trolling.
Seems I was right about the apologetic bunch, they think they can just praise the Mass Effect games and ignore all else, lol.
Log in to comment