General Games Discussion

The way I see it, the argument for getting a computer is that it's simply more powerful. It can run most games on graphical settings that are higher than what the max quality settings on consoles are capped at, and often times you even have the option of higher FPS. I will always prefer a mouse and keyboard, but that's just my personal preference. It's just a better experience, in general. And of course, a computer can be used for other things than just gaming. It's also much easier to find cheap games on sale for PC compared to consoles. You can even pirate them, if you're willing to risk doing so. Oh, and mods. Mods add a huge amount of content to certain games.

Consoles are typically cheaper, have more of a plug and play appeal to them in the sense that you don't need to worry about keeping up with the ever evolving computer specs and requirements, or even having any knowledge about what those specs mean. One thing I like about playing on my console, is that I can lay down on my couch while doing so, as opposed to sitting in a chair. I think Harmonica argued that you can simply plug the PC up to your TV, but my girlfriend would absolutely not have accepted that.

I personally think that the best argument for consoles is that they have exclusive games that aren't available on PC. Also, this may be a subjective opinion, but I appreciate the fact that I can watch sports with friends on my TV, and then seamlessly switch over to my recently acquired PS5 to play FIFA. I should probably mention that consoles are much more convenient when it comes to playing with multiple people in the same room as well. Some of my most immersive gaming experiences are on PC, but my most memorable, social moments were in games like, Guitar Hero, FIFA and Call of Duty where we were playing in the same room on a console. Hell, I'd add games like wii bowling to that list. It's not necessarily better, but definitely a different experience compared to having a LAN party where everyone brings their own computers

That was a great post from Thimmy.

If you go the console route, would you just not get a new PC/laptop?

PC specs evolve constantly, it never stops as there are always new generations of CPUs, GPUs, etc.

I've done that, can't be bothered anymore. Nothing beats the convenience of buying a console, plugging it to the TV and knowing that I won't have to care about specs, performance, or compatibility again. It's way cheaper as well.

In the end it depends on the kind of games you will want to play. Some genres are better played on console and some on PC. The big one that I miss not having a gaming PC at the moment are strategy games.

Definitely gaming PC if you can spend little more. Unlimited amount of games from any era, and you'll only lose the PS exclusives as Xbox games are all on PC I think. Only PS exclusive I've ever wanted to play is Grand Tourismo, so for me console makes no sense, just for that.

Also you can't mod games on PS like on PC. I just finished nth Oblivion playthrough with 100 new mods, and it was again a completely different experience. With mods you can extend your favorite games life pretty much forever, or as long as mods are developed to it. I mean Daggerfall after realeasing on Unity Engine, is now exploding on modding scene, and has better experience than ever before. Now that modpacks are thing on Nexus, it's also easier than ever to mod games with few clicks.

On Steam you can pause your download, and resume when ever so slow speed shouldn't be that much of a problem. And when you've downloaded it, you only download updates.

I prefer consoles purely for gaming but if you really want to try out PC gaming then you should do it. Mods, more discounts and piracy are decent options and obviously you can do much more other stuff on a PC. You can also buy a pad and plug it into the PC to get the console experience as well if you feel like it

I've had consoles pretty much my whole life, PC only for low size games but always wanted a powerful PC. I guess you always want what you dont have as in the grass is always greener

Starfield has already over 200k lines of dialogue, compared to Skyrim 60k and FO4 111k. With 1000 planets, space ship and base building, and modders it's going to be the best sandbox ever for rpg's.

Except its still running on Bethesda's same but slighly upgraded engine with its clunky face animations, bland combat and dubious design flaws.

I have a strong feeling this game won't hold up to today's standards, it'll probably get mid reviews (7ish)

What are todays standards? Bethesda "sandbox" rpg's don't really have any competition. KCD/Witcher/Cyberclunky are story based without real mod support, Elex is pretty sandboxy, but without mods. Pretty much every person that understands how game engines work, say that Bethesda shouldn't swap its engine, or they will lose the core of their games. Dynamism and modding. Now this wont stop surface reviewers complaing about it, but who cares about modern reviewers anyway?

Mount & Blade 2: Bannerlord Coming To Consoles October 25

https://www.thegamer.com/mount-blade-2-bannerlord-consoles/

Can't wait this to leave EA

Kaladin wrote:Except its still running on Bethesda's same but slighly upgraded engine with its clunky face animations, bland combat and dubious design flaws.

I have a strong feeling this game won't hold up to today's standards, it'll probably get mid reviews (7ish)

Honestly that's perfectly okay because their games are really fun to play. FO4 was clunky too but i could spend hours on it as they really do well with world building.

Been reading about UE5 and all of its hype, it does seem that it doesn't support dynamic items in the world. At least without modifying them in, so again there still isn't anything truly better out there. And this brings me on the story of the rake. People will say W3 looks better than Skyrim (vanilla), and those same people will make a conclusion based on that its a better game partly because of it.

They are however missing a critical immersion component in the engine. While in Witcher 3 the world is completely static, like rakes you find in the closets are just virtual rakes. You can't do anything with them, you can't see them other than in your inventory. They're basically just an ingame currency. There's no immersion in that. While in Bethesda games every item can be a dynamic item in the world, you can pick the rake up, throw it away on the ground, kick it, build a wall from them and so on. That has been in the Creation Engine since Oblivion 2006. Looking Starfield and UE5 demos, I would never swap dynamic immersion to slightly better fidelity, not in rpg's. In rpg immersion is the most important thing.

So apparently bad animations, uncanny valley effect, glitches and just outdated graphics make it an engine for experts cause augmentations.

UE5 engine blows it out of the water. Bethesda games make interesting worlds but their engine is so behind is kills the immersion.

Harmonica wrote:Mount & Blade 2: Bannerlord Coming To Consoles October 25

https://www.thegamer.com/mount-blade-2-bannerlord-consoles/

Can't wait this to leave EA

First one was very underrated.

Arquitecto wrote:So apparently bad animations, uncanny valley effect, glitches and just outdated graphics make it an engine for experts cause augmentations.

UE5 engine blows it out of the water. Bethesda games make interesting worlds but their engine is so behind is kills the immersion.

Gameplay fidelity in the UE5 Matrix demo actually looks worse than in Starfield. https://youtu.be/2KU8AWuAaHE?t=745

Please show me better ingame character animations in rpg's than what's in Starfield demo. And no cinematic animations, but ingame animation. Because unlike most, in Creation Engine you can actually walk to an npc and talk to it ingame.

#41(S2)

Game: Tomb Raider II:-
Year: 1997.
Genre: 3D Action-Platformer Adventure.
Publisher: Eidos Interactive.
Developer: Core Design




If you notice in the game's cover art, its titled Tomb Raider II: Starring Lara Croft. At this stage, it wasclear that the character and game became iconic in the gaming landscape, and that was enforced by an extensive and extremely effective ad campaign.

As I explored in my review of the first game, despite some revolutionary advancements, I don't think the firstgame was very good to begin with, and is certainly intolerble now. While the sequel improved on every aspect of the game, I think the shortned development time (to catch the hype train of the original) and the flawed basis of gameplay means this is still not a very fun game to play.

"Pardon me if that was just your way of trying the doors for me"

The story this time is about Lara stumbling into a conspiracy regarding an ancient and powerful artificat, a Tibetan dagger with the power of dragons, pursued by an Italian occultist organization. While initially short in tension, the story is explored effectively through some good PS1-era cutscenes.

With good Voice Acting, and effective scene direction, it does feel like a particularly good Indiana Jones rip-off plot, and the charisma of Lara in the leading role might have been novel enough to pull it off. Also, thanks to the globe-trotting nature of this adventure, this allows a decent level of environmental storytelling through the levels themselves, even if I felt that wasn't capitalized on enough.

One things that was missing in both games is any sort of story elements in the levels themselves. No lore to discover, conversations to eavesdrop on, and no conversations with another living creature other than in cutscenes.

It is extremely limited when compared to what other action games were doing at the time, like Resident Evil and Tenchu, and is a criminal waste of the character. In general, I feel that the game was extremely comfortable with the reputation of Lara Croft that they never felt the need to have any compelling story around her.

"Blood or answers. I have no preference, he should spill a bit of both"

Carrying on with the same formula of the first game, this is basically a 3D Action-Platformer with occasional puzzle solving. It employs much of the same movements and actions of the original, but improves slightly on every aspect.

Like I said before, when the underwater mechanics are the most fluid and satesfying in the game, then the rest of the game has significant issues.

Simply put, Lara is still stiff to move. Jumping feel awkward, difficult to adjust, and almost unresponsive. She moves in jerking motions, making it difficult to align her with key objects. For that, you will need to use slow movement buttons to slowly nudge her into position. This makes moving around an extreme pain.

All of this is annoying without anyone shooting at you, which when it happens, further degrades the experience. Even though you now have more weapon options, auto-locking into enemies and having little or awkward evasive or defensive options isn't fun. That's especially the case when the enemy's pathfinding ignores lines of site and there is little opportunity for stealth.

The majority of the game has you go into places, trying to figure out how to find keys or move things into place, and then slowly move and jump around to reach the next destination. Vehicles in a couple of levels shake things up slightly, as does the environment.

However, when the core mechanics of the gameplay are simply not fun, then no amount of variety can make up for that.

"Don't you think you've see enough?"

Of the aspects that gained a lift0up, none were as obvious as the game's graphics. Simply, everything looks much nicer and more detailed than it did before. Levels are more varied and better textured, and Lara's model received an upgrade. Its ironic to consider that her hair was an important selling point in 1997 just as Square thought it was with the reboot in 2013.

I already said the cutscenes did a good job, especially when you consider that they are almost exclusively in-engine scenes. Obviously, the CGI scenes looked better, but the game didn't need to rely on them as much.

There is an aspect in graphics that may have been impressive in the past but is actually poorly executed was the lighting system. Many areas in the game were too dark, requiring you to activate a flare to light them up. Unfortuanntely, the light didn't travel far enough, creating areas of darkness that made the game even more unpleasant to play.

One thing that was always pleasant to here is the soundtrack. Again, it was minimalistic in its usage, only kicking in when you are about to progress or as you discover the solution. The tracks are really good, and the fact that hearing them meant you are about to finish an rea made them even better to hear.

In Conclusion:

As the second most successful PS1 game in the UK, Tomb Raider II proves that iconography, brand recognition, and recognizable characterization is a more important predictor of success than quality. That's not to say that this game was as bad to play then as it is now, but that its flaws were still tolerated and contemporary similar games were made better.

Still, none of those games had the fame and appeal of Lara Croft, and that went a long way to seperate this game from the rest of the bunch.

At least in that time, Lara Croft's reputation did make a difference.

Final: 5/10

Pros:

• Iconic character.
  
• Expressive cut-scenes.
  
• Varied world design.
  
• Actually really good character model.
  

Cons:

• Empty and lifeless world.
  
• Stiff movements make puzzle-solving excruciating.
  
• Poor platforming mechanics.
  
• Poor camera design.
  
• Terrible fighting gameplay.
  
• Lighting sucks.
  

"Tips"
1- Make sure to play the tutorial level in Lara's Mansion to learn the controls.
2- Pull out your weapons and randomly shoot whenever you go into a new area.
3- Press "Circle" for a 180 degree.
4- Jump and hit the grab button always.
5- Use the R2 button to slowly strafe sideways.
6- Some keys are held by enemies, so you will need to kill to advance.
7- This means that fleeing from enemies is actually a bad idea, no matter how shit the gameplay is.

"Next Game"

I expected Tomb Raider II to improve on its predecessor, but not by much, and that's what happened.

Now, I actually think that Eidos were just milking the franchise at this points, and that the third game wouldn't advance the formula or mechanics at all. I am not sure if I should review it, but I will just ot be thorough with this iconic PS1 franchise. Except, I really don't think it deserves this level of respect at all.

Stay Tuned

Thinking of getting Skyrim. Thoughts?

Gooooooooooo

I'm thinking of starting a new career mode on Fifa 22 recently. I'm not sure which team to pick, though.

I've already done a career mode with Forest, where I've completed 8 seasons before getting bored of it.

I'd say wait for FIFA 23. There are improvements coming to the career mode.

I did a career mode with Nice as manager and it was great, they have a lot of high potential players at almost every position which you aren't forced to sell. I recommend them.

I play on legendary to be more realistic and winning Ligue 1 was a tough challenge. Won Conference League quite easily though (i think you must add manually for the 1st season)

Thanks for the suggestions, guys! I'll start a career mode with Nice when Fifa 23 releases. Until then, I'll just play some practise matches. And I'll try and complete all 15 seasons of career mode with Nice.

I'm honestly pretty excited for Starfield. I'm not a graphics fetishist so I will freely accept a lower standard on that front if it means more customization, a compelling narrative, and as much free roam ability and decision-making as can be had in an RPG.

I don't play Skyrim or ESO for the graphics.