View Topic

Since you mention it... I'm not familiar at all with First Person Shooter games, and I'll admit not being good at them when I occasionally try, so I can't comment much on those, especially the Tom Clancy games that I haven't tried. I just know a little about Goldeneye being historically important for making console FPSs viable despite an impressively low budget, Halo being historically important for making the XBox viable despite otherwise having no other good exclusives over the PS2 for over a year, and the most recent Wolfenstein being a game about killing Nazis which apparently upset some of the alt-reich Trump supporters, which was interesting to say the least. The Tom Clancy games though, I know I've seen both Rainbow Six and Ghost Recon, and apparently they're usually rated highly, but I forgot them as I'm unsure if they've had an important role in gaming for me to remember them by.

I had completely forgotten the name Peter Molyneux, apparently he's responsible for Fable, the game I picked thinking it would be an amazing Fantasy genre game because of the hype, and ended up being decisively average. Apparently he was the main guy behind the overhype. So I don't think I like him either, but just for that as I don't know anything about Godus, other than based on the ratings that too seems to be decisively average.

In Ark: Survival Evolved, I have returned to singleplayer since the server that I was on got disconnected.  Have not been doing much in anything else lately.

Just finished Life is Strange. That type of ending would have made me furious in the past. Now, with all the shit that's been happening to my favourite pastime, I feel so underwhelmed that all I can say is "meh, well this sucks." That's kind of sad.

On the other hand, it does make me appreciate games like the original Deus Ex, The Witcher 3, Dragon Age Origins and Heavy Rain so much more, since apparently they are the only games that can nail the ending even after offering so much player choice.

I liked Life Is Strange... but I did hear that they started to run out of money towards the end, leading to them not doing as much to finish the story as they wanted. Especially if you pick the "wrong" ending which clearly isn't even complete.

The ending was indeed very underwhelming. That there were not more endings after all the different choices you could make before was a letdown. And I chose what I assume was the "wrong" ending -- after all that you had to go through, it seemed like the right one at the time.

I liked the game a lot overall, though. The ending was the only thing that needed improvement.

Yeah, the game was really good before the final nightmare sequences of Episode 5. When episode 4 began, I had to take a break, since I wasn't ready for how dark they were willing to go with this story.

It's funny how a bad ending can sour the entire experience. I have no doubt I'll remember Life is Strange very fondly a few months from now, but right now, the ending is all I can think about.

Bay over bae, y'all. Especially since Chloe is less bae and more bae-otch.

I happened to like her, teenage melodrama and all. Just ain't no way I'm choosing one person's life over the life of an entire town. Fuck that.

I saved Chloe. There's reason to believe the storm didn't kill every person in Arcadia Bay. I mean, it's a coastal town -- there's gotta be bunkers, cellars, etc. where people can hide in case of storms. Yeah, the town itself is fucked and some people will die, but I doubt everyone would. If I had to choose between a loved one or the lives of others, I'd definitely choose the loved one. That's probably selfish, but it's not like anyone would know.

Sounds like a trolley problem variant...

That tornado did not look natural. I'm willing to bet everyone was completely fucked, except perhaps for David, since he was still chilling in that murder bunker.

For me, the deciding factor was free will. I killed Chloe when she asked me to in episode 4, and I did it again here, because it was her choice to make. She fucked up her life completely to get to the point where Nathan would shoot her, and even she realised she would have to pay the price for it, in the end.

To be honest, I am surprised that there is even a debate about what choice to make here, but it seems it was not as cut-and-dried for everyone as I assumed it was.

Plus, even ignoring the fact that Warren and Joyce would die, I absolutely cannot let children die in such a scenario.

But I must say the entire thing is ridiculous. It would take the protagonist very little trouble to convince everyone to leave this town, days in advance, even if she chooses to save Chloe. She would just need to prophesy the snow and Eclipse, which would of course come true, and everyone would be out of there in a flash if she tells them about the tornado that's coming.

I got Call of Duty WWII recently. I haven’t played it much yet, but I like how the multiplayer took a step back from the newest COD games like Advanced Warfare. Advanced Warfare was not so great and didn’t sound so popular. WWII is definitely better.

As for the campaign, it’s good so far. Although normal difficulty doesn’t seem to work so well; enemies kind of line up and don’t use cover often. While the AIs on your team die in one shot to be left there forever, you can be shot ten times. All you do is use a med pack and you’re healed magically. It’s difficult enough though, despite these unrealistic factors helping you.

I like some of the things they did with zombies. You can actually find the Easter egg on your own! You don’t have to look up an hour long Easter egg video on YouTube and follow it precisely anymore. The Easter egg is lengthy, but a casual player can complete it. There also is a second Easter egg for hardcore players. The knife being replaced with a shovel was weird and the advanced melee attack is strange, but it’s okay.

But now in zombies, you can run right by zombies without any problems, which you’ve never been able to do before. And now it’s not just “you die in 2 hits,” you have this armor thing that replaces juggernaut and gets more expensive every time you buy it. For someone like me who’s not that good at zombies, it’s a welcome change, but others might complain.

I finally felt the wrath of the World's most dangerous leader in history. Gandhi. My Civ 5 game was going swell, I was Greece thus I was allies with all the City-States, me and Gandhi had our differences before, mainly me settling too close to their lands, but I thought that was in the past. I was wrong. What started as a simple war between me and the Huns, started by them, turned into a full fledged world war, apparently India befriended the Huns, next thing I know, Athens and Sparta have been nuked, Argos and Corinth remained unscathed but the damage was done, the setbacks were terrible, I lost happiness and I lost three City state allies to the Hunnic onslaught. I was elected world leader 20 years later but the effects of the war were still there, I saw my people burn in nuclear fire because of a bloodthirsty madman named Mahatma Gandhi.

It's somewhat telling that the games I am most into right now are from 2011 (Skyrim for the PS4) and 2010 (Victoria 2) I'm having a hard time actually remembering a game from 2017 I enjoyed playing. That is a sad indictment of gaming today, in my opinion.

It's somewhat telling that the games I am most into right now are from 2011 (Skyrim for the PS4) and 2010 (Victoria 2) I'm having a hard time actually remembering a game from 2017 I enjoyed playing. That is a sad indictment of gaming today, in my opinion.

  That is fine.  I have been playing Command & Conquer games for a long time.  Most of those are a bit older than that.

On another note.  I got back into Diablo 3 and finally finished Act 2 as my Demon Hunter.