Whatcha playin? (Video games wise.)

The Drifter

New member
I've been playing Dishonored the past four or five days. It's an okay game, I'm having fun with it so far, but I don't agree with it being GoTY material for 2012 like I've seen so many other people (at other forums) claim. I'll post a review of it here when I am done (should be tomorrow as I'm on the last mission, I do believe).
Also, Finn; I'd have to agree with your opinion on ACIII, I enjoyed the game, but I was left wanting something more. I felt as if I didn't get to see or explore enough of the Revolutionary War. I can't quite put my finger on it. It just felt lacking...
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Finn said:
(As a secondary talking point, one might also ponder has gaming taken too many steps from fun to serious business, if every goddarn piece typed into this thread turns into an academic dissertation.)


I can lower the tone very quickly.

Did you notice the turd in the toilet bowl in the Japanese house in Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory? :p
 

Le Saboteur

Active member
The Drifter said:
I've been playing Dishonored the past four or five days.

If you're already on the last mission, I would suggest that you're playing it way too fast. But at the same time, I think the developers rushed the final third in order to make somebodies deadline. Should have been two more missions in there.

Finn said:
Stop adding stuff to my platter, it's already overloaded as it is.

Tell me about it. While I doubt my backlog is nearly as large as yours is, it's populated by open-world games and collections. The amount of time required to properly explore them is...well, daunting.

To wit, Risen 2: Dark Waters, Sleeping Dogs, Sly Cooper Collection, Jak & Daxter Collection, The Saboteur, The Witcher 2, Hitman: Absolution, Ratchet & Clank Collection, Assassins Creed III, Broken Sword 1 & 2, Mata Hari, & SSX.

I popped Far Cry 3 back in earlier this evening, but what free time there was available over the past couple of weeks was consumed by Batman: Arkham City. While I had originally beat it a while ago, I had been trying to earn the Calendar Man trophy the legitimate way. Which means you have to remember to pop it in on certain dates throughout the year! Only four more months to go now!

I also opted to spend some of my PSN funds on the Revenge of Harley Quinn DLC, and I must say that I didn't feel completely snookered by it.


Unfortunately it's wa-ay too short to live up to the promise of the trailer and title, but it was a nice addition. Getting to semi-roam as Robin was welcome, too.

Should have been five bucks, not ten.

The Drifter said:
The jungle, mountains and beaches feel so alive. I have never seen a world feel so lived in and organic. Even hours into the game, I found myself stopping and looking in awe out across a grand vista or just admiring the beauty of the jungle at dawn.

I agree, but with qualifications. 1.) I wish they had worked on the animal AI some more. For example, when a tiger takes down its prey it's going to start eating. What it's not going to do is get up and try and chase you down because you happened to walk within twenty yards of its kill. 2.) The privateers aren't nearly as interesting to eavesdrop on, but that's a complaint of most open-world games.

Towards that end, I wish every developer that releases an open-world game would be required to put out an "atmosphere pack" as DLC. It would add, for example, a handful of extra phrases for the enemies to say, maybe some more weather patterns, and a few more random events. I can't begin to relate how annoyed I became at hearing yet another pirate lament about not using a rubber.
 

The Drifter

New member
Le Saboteur said:
If you're already on the last mission, I would suggest that you're playing it way too fast. But at the same time, I think the developers rushed the final third in order to make somebodies deadline. Should have been two more missions in there.

Me playing it too fast would've been the case for sure if I didn't make the mistake of thinking I was close to the end.
I thought that I was at the last level, but that wasn't the case at all. I'm still playing it, and I think it's picking up during these later missions.



Le Saboteur said:
I agree, but with qualifications. 1.) I wish they had worked on the animal AI some more. For example, when a tiger takes down its prey it's going to start eating. What it's not going to do is get up and try and chase you down because you happened to walk within twenty yards of its kill. 2.) The privateers aren't nearly as interesting to eavesdrop on, but that's a complaint of most open-world games.

Towards that end, I wish every developer that releases an open-world game would be required to put out an "atmosphere pack" as DLC. It would add, for example, a handful of extra phrases for the enemies to say, maybe some more weather patterns, and a few more random events. I can't begin to relate how annoyed I became at hearing yet another pirate lament about not using a rubber.

I agree with those points. While I greatly enjoyed the animals, there were times where the made me chuckle. I can't count how many tapirs I've seen jump into a river and drown themselves, Disney-lemming style.
 

Le Saboteur

Active member
The Drifter said:
I can't count how many tapirs I've seen jump into a river and drown themselves, Disney-lemming style.

Which is hilarious. Why? Because tapirs can swim!

The Drifter said:
Me playing it too fast would've been the case for sure if I didn't make the mistake of thinking I was close to the end.

Ah! I bet I know exactly where you're at. I thought the same thing initially. But, by listening to a lot of the audio tapes scattered around the Hound Pits I began to suspect where the story was headed.
 

Goodsport

Member
Someone had recently posted this comparison of certain locations in both Guild Wars and Guild Wars 2, which are set about 250 years apart from each other:


 

Montana Smith

Active member
A change of pace. Got GTA IV running.

It's a fine looking game, but controlling the cars at speed with the keyboard is proving difficult at the moment.

Love the destructibility of everything, the physics and the reactions of the pedestrians to your driving. (Especially when you hit them!)

Hit a tree and flew through the windscreen. Never done that before in a GTA game!
 

Finn

Moderator
Staff member
Montana Smith said:
A change of pace. Got GTA IV running.

It's a fine looking game, but controlling the cars at speed with the keyboard is proving difficult at the moment.
The whole idea of the driving in that game is finding the sweet spot between speed and maneuverability and holding it there as well as you can. Too high, and you end up crashing into things. Too low, and you risk getting caught or having your quarry escape depending on your role in the chase. It varies from vehicle to vehicle, so it may take awhile to master.

Some people say it's easier to achieve with a gamepad, and maybe they're right, but I've yet to find a game where I'd be willing to trade it off with far more precise movement of the aiming reticule provided by the mouse.

---

Speaking of open world games, I've got Sleeping Dogs under scrutiny. I don't think I'm in deep enough to give a lasting overall verdict, but I've got this to say: I think it's got the best control scheme of any title in the sandbox genre I've ever played. GTAs are supposed to be the candle holders, as they have maps full of discovery and things to do, but to be honest, they're usually just mostly average in what comes to executing those movements. The driving controls are something of an acquired taste, especially in IV, the shooty bits a bit clunky and I don't think I've ever willfully engaged in melee unless it's required to pass a mission.

I'm not saying it's something that kills the game, though. Usually, when a sandbox is built, some compromises has to be made to make a single engine support all the different activities. However, no such shortcomings with Sleeping Dogs. Driving feels fine. Not exactly as precise as in games dedicated to racing, but nothing that requires extensive practice either. And on-foot controls are... well, simply great. Everything from running around to hand-to-hand combat to shooting is fluid and well executed. It remains to be seen if the design of the game world holds up all the way to the end (no major complaints this far), but United Front Games really hit one new high bar in here, leaving others trailing. I'm not saying it's unbeatable as there are bits where I can still see room for improvement, but right now they've set a new example for even Rockstar to follow.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Finn said:
The whole idea of the driving in that game is finding the sweet spot between speed and maneuverability and holding it there as well as you can. Too high, and you end up crashing into things. Too low, and you risk getting caught or having your quarry escape depending on your role in the chase. It varies from vehicle to vehicle, so it may take awhile to master.

Some people say it's easier to achieve with a gamepad, and maybe they're right, but I've yet to find a game where I'd be willing to trade it off with far more precise movement of the aiming reticule provided by the mouse.

I never got on with a gamepad either. The combination of keyboard and mouse seems far more natural.
 

Attila the Professor

Moderator
Staff member
So, here's a question, since a bunch of you are interested in the sandbox genre. I've played Red Dead Redemption, L.A. Noire, and am getting into Assassin's Creed II. (Ok, I've also played the first of the Godfather games.)

What do you think would be the best next step? I would guess perhaps GTA IV? (I'm probably inclined to wait until GTA V is both cheaper and expanded prior to purchase.) I know Fallout has some fans in these parts as well.
 

Finn

Moderator
Staff member
Attila the Professor said:
What do you think would be the best next step?
You kinda lost me with this question, Prof, as the titles you mentioned are not exactly connected to each other apart from having freeroam elements. It's not like they form a series or anything. In fact, they're all pretty far from each other, both thematically and gameplaywise, as I'm sure you've noticed. Red Dead is GTA with horses, AC concentrates on social stealth and Noire is essentially an old school adventure game set in an open city.

If you were simply asking what other sandbox titles there are out there that could be worth experiencing, I'm guessing one can never go wrong with GTA. IV's deluxe edition (containing both expansions) should be available for peanuts these days, with hours and hours of gameplay.

I wouldn't exactly bring the modern Fallouts into this discussion, as I don't personally consider them part of the same genre. They're RPGs first and foremost.


Regardless, I suspect it'd be a bit easier to namedrop titles if you'd rephrase the question a little.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Finn said:
I wouldn't exactly bring the modern Fallouts into this discussion, as I don't personally consider them part of the same genre. They're RPGs first and foremost.


To my mind the Fallouts feel more 'sandbox' than GTA IV.

Sandbox is a style of game in which minimal character limitations are placed on the gamer, allowing the gamer to roam and change a virtual world at will. In contrast to a progression-style game, a sandbox game emphasizes roaming and allows a gamer to select tasks. Instead of featuring segmented areas or numbered levels, a sandbox game usually occurs in a “world” to which the gamer has full access from start to finish.

http://www.techopedia.com/definition/3952/sandbox


The RPG element adds more choice to your actions, but it also imposes the sense of doing things a certain way (even though any way is an option). Every time I've played through Fallout 3 or New Vegas my character has always sought to do the right thing, to be 'as good as possible', because the virtual world feels real, and your actions within it have consequences. The limits in Fallout are ones you place on yourself.

GTA IV, since it has a higher level of realism than previous GTA releases, is the first one that strikes me as really sleazy. The others were more cartoon parody, and your actions were affecting an arcade-type world. Now, beating the seven shades out of the unsuspecting populace, or seeing the blood of a rundown pedestrian on the front of your vehicle somehow makes Niko more unlikable than his predecessors.

You have no choice but to put the frighteners on non-paying shopkeepers, or gun down rival drug gangs, if you want to make progress through the game. Niko is always going to be a criminal, whereas your characters in Fallout 3 and New Vegas could be good, bad or indifferent.


On top of that, the GTA series always seems to block off a large of the world from the start. A bridge is closed until later. This creates a partially levelled design, as you have to complete certain missions before the world opens up completely. Whereas in the post-apocalyptic wasteland you can pretty much walk to any point from the start and start missions, which, however, would be pretty challenging for a new, weak and under-equipped character.


On the subject of GTA IV, the driving is becoming a little easier. The motorbike seemed simplest of all to keep on the road, but there aren’t many about, and they’re no good for ramming the opposition.

The route planning is a neat idea, as is the talking satnav in some of the cars. The mobile 'phone is a natural method of keeping in contact with people.

The bad cabaret acts were funny. Bowling and playing pool became a bit addictive. I'm so new to this game that there's a lot I don't know yet.
 

Finn

Moderator
Staff member
Montana Smith said:
To my mind the Fallouts feel more 'sandbox' than GTA IV.
In the purest definition of word "sandbox", yes. However, if we are to use it as a genre label, it gets a different meaning.

Even if the word matches, marketing Fallout to somebody as a sandbox game could be misleading, as people who usually ask for sandbox games expect gameplay where moving from action setpiece to another is all that is required to progress through the game, rather than social interaction and character building.

I'm not saying that Attila couldn't possibly enjoy a good open-world RPG such as F3 or New Vegas, but given how he listed a number of action-oriented sandboxes, it's only natural to issue a warning. After all, the gameplay in Fallout *is* different from those mentioned by the good prof, which all base around the same idea, despite selecting their own approaches to it.


Montana Smith said:
The RPG element adds more choice to your actions, but it also imposes the sense of doing things a certain way (even though any way is an option). Every time I've played through Fallout 3 or New Vegas my character has always sought to do the right thing, to be 'as good as possible', because the virtual world feels real, and your actions within it have consequences. The limits in Fallout are ones you place on yourself.
It's a rather idealistic view on the game, given how in the end, every choice you make and their outcomes are still predetermined by the developer. So the player is not writing his or her own story, not acting it out either, and not exactly even directing it - but is more akin to an editor, who takes the shot material and decides what of it makes it to the final cut.

Montana Smith said:
You have no choice but to put the frighteners on non-paying shopkeepers, or gun down rival drug gangs, if you want to make progress through the game. Niko is always going to be a criminal, whereas your characters in Fallout 3 and New Vegas could be good, bad or indifferent.
In a sense, you can roleplay Niko. The player can be either a criminal sociopath with very little regard for human life, or more of an anti-hero, who only kills those who directly oppose him. While they definitely have no effect on the larger outcome, there still are little choices littered here and there that can be used to almost make him a sympathetic character. One may not be able to fully turn the story around, but our interpretations of a character or characters can definitely be changed. Playing a game like GTA IV is full of "Han shot first" moments.

Montana Smith said:
On the subject of GTA IV, the driving is becoming a little easier. The motorbike seemed simplest of all to keep on the road, but there aren’t many about, and they’re no good for ramming the opposition.
A free hint: The game gives all vehicle types distinct maximum speed, mass and handling - but fairly decent rate of acceleration. Therefore, use regular brakes liberally when you need that extra bit of maneuverability. Gaining back the momentary loss of speed rarely becomes an issue.
 
Last edited:

Montana Smith

Active member
Finn said:
In the purest definition of word "sandbox", yes. However, if we are to use it as a genre label, it gets a different meaning.

Even if the word matches, marketing Fallout to somebody as a sandbox game could be misleading, as people who usually ask for sandbox games expect gameplay where moving from action setpiece to another is all that is required to progress through the game, rather than social interaction and character building.

I see. I just presumed it was a sandbox! :D

Finn said:
It's a rather idealistic view on the game, given how in the end, every choice you make and their outcomes are still predetermined by the developer. So the player is not writing his or her own story and not exactly even directing it, but is more akin to an editor, who takes the shot material and decides what of it makes it to the final cut.

Prior to getting into Fallout 3, the last sandbox game I played was GTA: San Andreas. When I got heavily into FO3 it felt much more open and involved. After talking you often have to do some killing, but there were nearly always different ways of going about it, or even avoiding the killing.

While FO3 ends at the same point, the outcome can be slightly different, and the way you got there could be distinctive. Distinctive enough to have an effect on the people you meet, altering the way they react to you.

The RPG element comes into that as well, since certain skills give different opportunities.

In a sense, you can roleplay Niko. The player can be either a criminal sociopath with very little regard for human life, or more of an anti-hero, who only kills those who directly oppose him. While they definitely have no effect on the larger outcome, there still are little choices littered here and there that can be used to almost make him a sympathetic character. One may not be able to fully turn the story around, but our interpretations of a character or characters can definitely be changed. Playing a game like GTA IV is full of "Han shot first" moments.

I haven't played GTA IV long enough yet to see the longterm effects Niko's actions have.

Finn said:
I'm not saying that Attila couldn't possibly enjoy a good open-world RPG such as F3 or New Vegas, but given how he listed a number of action-oriented sandboxes, it's only natural to issue a warning. After all, the gameplay in Fallout *is* different from those mentioned by the good prof, which all base around the same idea, despite selecting their own approaches to it.

It also lacks driving. Would've been cool to become a 'road warrior' in the wasteland every now and then: FO3 + GTA IV = complete mayhem!


Finn said:
A free hint: The game gives all vehicle types distinct maximum speed, mass and handling - but fairly decent rate of acceleration. Therefore, use regular brakes liberally when you need that extra bit of maneuverability. Gaining back the momentary loss of speed rarely becomes an issue.

I found switching to first person view gives a better sense of control. But you do miss out on seeing the motion of your own car.
 

Finn

Moderator
Staff member
Montana Smith said:
Prior to getting into Fallout 3, the last sandbox game I played was GTA: San Andreas. When I got heavily into FO3 it felt much more open and involved. After talking you often have to do some killing, but there were nearly always different ways of going about it, or even avoiding the killing.

While FO3 ends at the same point, the outcome can be slightly different, and the way you got there could be distinctive. Distinctive enough to have an effect on the people you meet, altering the way they react to you.

The RPG element comes into that as well, since certain skills give different opportunities.
See, here's the thing. Having an open world in an RPG is really not a new thing. Ever since the dawn of the digital gaming the genre has aspired to go there. Think of the Ultima series for example. Heck, the first in series which came out in 1981 had a top-view map that was free to roam for the player. These days, people keep wondering how large is the open-world map of any upcoming Elder Scrolls title going to be, and are kinda forgetting that the first one, titled Arena, already had all of Tamriel for the player to explore. Or, if you pick any Bioware title before the Mass Effect craze, they're definitely built around the concept of openness. Sure, they're still divided into separate sections, or levels if you will, but regardless, they're somewhat free to roam in their condensed state, and the players can definitely tackle them in the order of their choosing and even come and go between 'em at will.

Now, those craving for some straightforward action were for the longest while treated with sidescrollers or, in the early 3D era, very condensed and linear dungeons (or castles, or office spaces, or whatever) with forward being usually the only general direction.

I guess you're starting to see now why word "sandbox" is all the buzz and marketing point in more action-oriented games, whereas in RPGs it is even something of an overlooked element. When the first GTAs rolled around, they essentially revolutionized action gaming. Whereas with RPGs a truly open space has been a foregone conclusion for decades now, all that's held them back has been the progression of technology.

In fact, it was something of a shocker that the title which set a landmark in the open world game design, GTA III, had essentially no roleplaying elements whatsoever.

Montana Smith said:
I haven't played GTA IV long enough yet to see the longterm effects Niko's actions have.
I don't know if this is a spoiler, but there are none. The game will give you a handful of choices between choosing whether an (usually minor) character lives or dies, and the game actually does have a branching ending, but they're all on-the-spot decisions with earlier ones having no bearing on the options open for you.

Still, they can go a long way (along with your free-roam gameplay, whether you choose to kill and maim random pedestrians at will, or not) in determining what kind of man the Niko you play is. It'll all be in your head of course, but does one really need tangible rewards in the game world for it to matter?


Montana Smith said:
It also lacks driving. Would've been cool to become a 'road warrior' in the wasteland every now and then: FO3 + GTA IV = complete mayhem!
Incidentally, in Fallout 2, you could have a car (which actually appears again in New Vegas, as a wreck run into a muck pit near Novac). Of course, given the technical limitations, there was no running down beasties or raiders or random townspeople with it (unless it was a scripted sequence) - but it does kinda make you wonder whether these new open-world Fallouts are a step back. In the good old nineties you could essentially roam around the whole of American west coast at will, now you're limited to the immediate surroundings of a single city.

And it does also serve a point to why people see action-oriented sandboxes far more sandboxy than RPG ones. The former are essentially a mixture of different genres - you can have a shooter, a racing game, even something of a platformer in the same package. For the latter however, combat and conversation and consequence have been staples since god knows when, the only difference is in presentation.
 
Last edited:

Attila the Professor

Moderator
Staff member
Finn said:
You kinda lost me with this question, Prof, as the titles you mentioned are not exactly connected to each other apart from having freeroam elements. It's not like they form a series or anything. In fact, they're all pretty far from each other, both thematically and gameplaywise, as I'm sure you've noticed. Red Dead is GTA with horses, AC concentrates on social stealth and Noire is essentially an old school adventure game set in an open city.

If you were simply asking what other sandbox titles there are out there that could be worth experiencing...

Fair enough. And yeah, that was more or less what I was asking, with the "next" portion of my phrasing pointing towards wanting to go for something that was either superior to others in the (potentially loose) genre, essential for its reputation or other qualities, or different enough from what I have played as to open up a new facet of the sandbox concept to me.

I've always heard compelling - or, at least, intriguing - things about Fallout 3 and New Vegas. I like the action elements of the games I have played, but I also can't say that they're the only draw. The "open" world of these games is likely the primary one. I've also never really played an RPG, some rinky-dink browser-based experiments aside, so maybe I should give it a try. Would you say one of the two Fallout games is more worthwhile than the other?

That said, of course, GTA and GTA IV do loom over (a stricter conception of) the genre. Heck, I might even be game for trying an earlier GTA installment, so as to enjoy it before the superior graphics of GTA IV ruins it for me. (You fellas know I like older games, but I didn't grow up with this genre the way I did, say, graphic adventures. Immersion is part of the point, along with the illusion of greater freedom.)
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Finn said:
See, here's the thing. Having an open world in an RPG is really not a new thing. Ever since the dawn of the digital gaming the genre has aspired to go there. Think of the Ultima series for example. Heck, the first in series which came out in 1981 had a top-view map that was free to roam for the player. These days, people keep wondering how large is the open-world map of any upcoming Elder Scrolls title going to be, and are kinda forgetting that the first one, titled Arena, already had all of Tamriel for the player to explore. Or, if you pick any Bioware title before the Mass Effect craze, they're definitely built around the concept of openness. Sure, they're still divided into separate sections, or levels if you will, but regardless, they're somewhat free to roam in their condensed state, and the players can definitely tackle them in the order of their choosing and even come and go between 'em at will.

Now, those craving for some straightforward action were for the longest while treated with sidescrollers or, in the early 3D era, very condensed and linear dungeons (or castles, or office spaces, or whatever) with forward being usually the only general direction.

I guess you're starting to see now why word "sandbox" is all the buzz and marketing point in more action-oriented games, whereas in RPGs it is even something of an overlooked element. When the first GTAs rolled around, they essentially revolutionized action gaming. Whereas with RPGs a truly open space has been a foregone conclusion for decades now, all that's held them back has been the progression of technology.

In fact, it was something of a shocker that the title which set a landmark in the open world game design, GTA III, had essentially no roleplaying elements whatsoever.

Incidentally, in Fallout 2, you could have a car (which actually appears again in New Vegas, as a wreck run into a muck pit near Novac). Of course, given the technical limitations, there was no running down beasties or raiders or random townspeople with it (unless it was a scripted sequence) - but it does kinda make you wonder whether these new open-world Fallouts are a step back. In the good old nineties you could essentially roam around the whole of American west coast at will, now you're limited to the immediate surroundings of a single city.

And it does also serve a point to why people see action-oriented sandboxes far more sandboxy than RPG ones. The former are essentially a mixture of different genres - you can have a shooter, a racing game, even something of a platformer in the same package. For the latter however, combat and conversation and consequence have been staples since god knows when, the only difference is in presentation.

I understand what you mean now.

You can't go bowling, play pool, throw darts, drive a car or see a cabaret in Fallout 3!

Finn said:
I don't know if this is a spoiler, but there are none. The game will give you a handful of choices between choosing whether an (usually minor) character lives or dies, and the game actually does have a branching ending, but they're all on-the-spot decisions with earlier ones having no bearing on the options open for you.

I let Ivan live, after reading advice that said it was better to have as many friends in Liberty City as possible!


Attila the Professor said:
Immersion is part of the point, along with the illusion of greater freedom.

Fallout 3 had me completely immersed to the point that I refused to do anything that would jeopardise my character's good standing.

As good as GTA IV is, I don't feel any real connection to the character or his world. There's lots to do, the driving is now great fun, the graphics are pretty, the destruction, crashes, and fires can be spectacular. I leapt from my burning car, and when recovered stood and looked back as the car exploded and set off a chain reaction of accidents and burning people!

Yet...

Attila the Professor said:
I've always heard compelling - or, at least, intriguing - things about Fallout 3 and New Vegas. I like the action elements of the games I have played, but I also can't say that they're the only draw. The "open" world of these games is likely the primary one. I've also never really played an RPG, some rinky-dink browser-based experiments aside, so maybe I should give it a try. Would you say one of the two Fallout games is more worthwhile than the other?

...these are still the pinnacle of my gaming experience.

Personally I would start with Fallout 3, as it sets the scene for the world. The Game of the Year edition has the five extra add-ons, one of which extends the number of levels your character can achieve.

The gaming world is an odd mix of the wacky and ironic, tempered by melancholy for a lost civilization. I became so immersed that going down into the creepy underground to face ghouls was something I preferred to do with a companion in tow!
 

Finn

Moderator
Staff member
Attila the Professor said:
Fair enough. And yeah, that was more or less what I was asking, with the "next" portion of my phrasing pointing towards wanting to go for something that was either superior to others in the (potentially loose) genre, essential for its reputation or other qualities, or different enough from what I have played as to open up a new facet of the sandbox concept to me.
Superiority kinda tends to go hand in hand with novelty. If you're simply looking for a richer experience, picking up any followup title in the series should do. Of course, there are exceptions so don't follow this as a rule, but since you mentioned Assassin's Creed II, I really can't help but yet again echo my sentiment of checking out Brotherhood.

Now, for difference, I guess any GTA is distinct enough to warrant a look. Even the older ones, if the graphics don't bother you. Another facet that pops to mind are the open world games built around the concept of destruction. There are three main IPs here, the Mercenaries, Just Cause and Red Faction series (well, for the last, technically just Guerrilla, as the rest are pretty linear) in which the main gameplay idea is that anything in the landscape that is man made can be leveled or totalled, usually in the most garish manner imaginable.

What comes to their quality as overall experiences, well, I've got to admit that some of these did leave me craving for something more, but for a difference seeker they should offer at least a few nights' worth of s**ts and giggles. You see any in a bargain bin, pick it up.


And then there are of course the two Mafia games, which are bit akin to L.A. Noire. There's very little freeroaming, only a tightly-knit story with the city acting as a little more than a backdrop. But if you felt compelled by the early 1900s atmosphere, these can definitely offer more of that.

Attila the Professor said:
Would you say one of the two Fallout games is more worthwhile than the other?
The good thing is that apart from a few throwaway references, there is no direct story connection between the two. Both are decent enough experiences, but if I were to pick just one, my vote would go to New Vegas. But there's really no saying that F3 wouldn't be worth it either. Whichever you come across first is a fine enough starting point.
 

Finn

Moderator
Staff member
Montana Smith said:
You can't go bowling, play pool, throw darts, drive a car or see a cabaret in Fallout 3!
You can see a cabaret in New Vegas though, so I guess that's progression for ya.

Montana Smith said:
Personally I would start with Fallout 3, as it sets the scene for the world.
Uh, not really. There's a little game, simply called Fallout, released in 1997 which does that.

In fact, as far the setting goes, Fallout 3 is actually the most detached of the four. The rest all take place in the same region - the west - and NV definitely is far more rooted to the earlier Fallout lore than F3 could ever hope to be.

As single outings, though, they're pretty much interchangeable. The chronology matters little. I guess the better argument for starting with F3 is that thanks to its setting being so separate from the rest, there is no baggage of history here and therefore no need to dive extensively into the background story to get every reference the game throws at ya.

NV still remains the better crafted game out of the two, though.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Finn said:
Uh, not really. There's a little game, simply called Fallout, released in 1997 which does that.

Yes, but gameplaywise, they look like a different animal.

3 was the first one I played, as the style of the previous two didn't appeal. The character you play is also a vault dweller, as in the original, so you're introduced to that form of life.

The player character in New Vegas wasn't a vault dweller.

Also, the heavier devastation in 3 gives a greater sense of the apocalypse, which to me set the melanbcholic scene. The New Vegas area fared better, and more survived intact.

Finn said:
As single outings, though, they're pretty much interchangeable. The chronology matters little. I guess the better argument for starting with F3 is that thanks to its setting being so separate from the rest, there is no baggage of history here and therefore no need to dive extensively into the background story to get every reference the game throws at ya.

That's definitely the case.

Finn said:
NV still remains the better crafted game out of the two, though.

All apart from the inability to continue after the end of the game without using a mod. And the mod isn't a perfect solution as there were choices you made that aren't recognized in the aftermath.

These games are so big that without poring over a guide you wouldn't know whether you'd done everything before you elected to go into the final battle.
 
Top