Steam+ Deals Mega Thread (All PC Gaming Deals)

Neuro5i5

Neuro5i5

CAGiversary!
Feedback
151 (100%)
This thread will attempt to provide a place to discuss past/present/future PC gaming deals. While mainly focusing on Steam games, any standout sales may also be presented. I will not be updating every Daily/Weekly/etc. sale. The tools to help individuals become a smarter shopper will be provided below.

See this POST for links to store sale pages, threads of interest and other tools to help you become a more informed PC game shopper.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 12 Downvote
Mooby said:
I won't say 'git gud' (although I should); but Dark Souls combat is not what I'd call clunky. Does it require timing? Yes. Best combat in a third-person action game I've played in years... probably a decade if we're going by the year a game was released. As the others have said the weapon variety and different attack moves make for a fairly deep melee combat experience. I was put off of it at first but on a second go I was hooked. I'd urge you to give it another chance unless you've already sunk a decent amount of time into it and didn't genuinely like it.
Click to expand...
I tend to think most people who come off w/a bad impression of DS combat don't play long and go in expecting a hack n' slash game when it's just not that. DS puts other games to shame with its combat system, I struggle to come up with another game that rivals the melee combat in it, let alone does it better. That may be personal preference, a lot of people might prefer god of war/bayonetta type 3rd person combat which is very different than ds.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
It also didn't help that I tried to play with Mouse and Keyboard on my first attempt.  I loathe controllers but I'd say using a controller is borderline mandatory for DS games.

 
Mooby said:
It also didn't help that I tried to play with Mouse and Keyboard on my first attempt. I loathe controllers but I'd say using a controller is borderline mandatory for DS games.
Click to expand...
Yeah you can't play w/KBM if you don't want to live through undue frustration. Even says on the store page that a controller is heavily recommended

 
Preedatore said:
Combat in dark souls is trash. It's purposefully clunky to make the game "hard." It's not a nuanced system that you have to master, it's a clunky system that you manage to overcome. Of course, saying anything derogatory about dark souls is met with the standard derp reply of git gud.
Click to expand...
Probably because you say dumb shit like "Combat in dark souls is trash".

 
TWIN PEAKS UPDATE

I've now watched the first three episodes of the original show on Netflix.

It's still terrible. It's a disaster.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Syntax Error said:
...and tits. Mostly for tits.

The main-quest aspect of DA:I can't take more than 20ish hours if that. Maybe double that if you're doing companion side quests, dragon hunting, etc. The only way you're hitting 150+ hours is if you're collecting every single shard, doing every single fetch quest, etc which you aren't really intended to do. You don't need that much Power and you don't need all the rewards, especially since the best gear comes from making it anyway. People who complained about the number of icons on the map and how time consuming it was to do them all are like someone bitching that it took too long for them to eat everything at the buffet so the restaurant sucks.
Click to expand...
I put quite a few hours into DA:I too; I can't remember how many, but definitely over 100. However, I'm not complaining about it. I did it because I wanted to. Likewise with The Witcher 3--I put over 150 hours into it altogether and I'm fine with that. I thought it was a fantastic game. I think MysterD is correct about the setting and characters being more important than combat. Personally I think the first game in the series had the best combat, but I enjoy Sapkowski and CD Projekt RED's fiction, so that's more significant to me. If you don't enjoy the setting, it may not be as much fun for you.

fastitocalon said:
I call that being "Dark Knighted". It is where the overwhelming hype makes a game/movie inevitably a letdown.
Click to expand...
Eh, I think there's something wrong with you if you're seriously implying that both The Witcher 3 and The Dark Knight are overrated. Because they're not.

pasports31 said:
Man, I'm playing Witcher 3 and so far it's one of the most disappointing games I've ever played. It's a fine game, but to me nowhere near the "OMG BEST RPG EVERZ" reviews it got. Feels like it's 70% cutscenes interspersed with horseback riding and mediocre combat. It's like an 8/10 for me. Granted, I'm still fairly early in the game (7-8 hours is a decent chunk of time, but in a game like the witcher it's only like 5% of the content), so maybe I'll get hooked, but right now I'm not enjoying it anymore than I did a game like Dragon Age Inquisition.
Click to expand...
Disappointing and yet you give it an 8/10? It can't be that disappointing then. But, yes, you've really barely scratched the surface of the game if you're 8 hours in.

 
INMATEofARKHAM said:
Okay my last update on the Razer Wildcat controller... I got the grip/padding crap off but it took an hour just to get the bottom layer off and then I had to use quite a bit Goo be gone to get the residue off.

All in all... I recommend leaving the optional grips off.
Click to expand...
I haven't installed mine yet and probably never will. Other than that and no wireless option I really like the controller.
 
Nothing371 said:
Probably because you say dumb shit like "Combat in dark souls is trash".
Click to expand...
Wow. Way to bring it. I feel so down on myself with the masterful trash talk you just laid down.

So sorry to have a contradictory opinion. I'm sure there's games that I enjoy that you and several others can't stand. That's life. No need to spout useless drivel in an attempt feel superior.

Maybe Mooby(you know, the one providing a reasonable argument) was right and I didn't give it enough time, but at this point in my life I can't devote hours upon hours to master something that feels clunky to me.
 
pasports31 said:
Man, I'm playing Witcher 3 and so far it's one of the most disappointing games I've ever played. It's a fine game, but to me nowhere near the "OMG BEST RPG EVERZ" reviews it got. Feels like it's 70% cutscenes interspersed with horseback riding and mediocre combat. It's like an 8/10 for me. Granted, I'm still fairly early in the game (7-8 hours is a decent chunk of time, but in a game like the witcher it's only like 5% of the content), so maybe I'll get hooked, but right now I'm not enjoying it anymore than I did a game like Dragon Age Inquisition.
Click to expand...
15-20 hours. that's how long it took for things to click for me. It's about that point where you're proficient in combat and strong enough that exploring probably won't immediately get you killed. The starting area of the main continent is drab and depressing, imo, but everything else is so much better by comparison.

 
Preedatore said:
Wow. Way to bring it. I feel so down on myself with the masterful trash talk you just laid down.

So sorry to have a contradictory opinion. I'm sure there's games that I enjoy that you and several others can't stand. That's life. No need to spout useless drivel in an attempt feel superior.

Maybe Mooby(you know, the one providing a reasonable argument) was right and I didn't give it enough time, but at this point in my life I can't devote hours upon hours to master something that feels clunky to me.
Click to expand...
1291476024_cat-hugs-teddy-bear.gif


 
I personally think the idea that it takes 15-20 hours for a game to "git gud" is bullshit. If it doesn't grab me within an hour or two it's not good. Also, the idea that a response to the combat in TW3 sucks is "focus on the other stuff" is also bullshit. I played 5 minutes of Dark Souls and the combat sucked.
 
warreni said:
I put quite a few hours into DA:I too; I can't remember how many, but definitely over 100. However, I'm not complaining about it. I did it because I wanted to. Likewise with The Witcher 3--I put over 150 hours into it altogether and I'm fine with that. I thought it was a fantastic game. I think MysterD is correct about the setting and characters being more important than combat. Personally I think the first game in the series had the best combat, but I enjoy Sapkowski and CD Projekt RED's fiction, so that's more significant to me. If you don't enjoy the setting, it may not be as much fun for you.

Eh, I think there's something wrong with you if you're seriously implying that both The Witcher 3 and The Dark Knight are overrated. Because they're not.

Disappointing and yet you give it an 8/10? It can't be that disappointing then. But, yes, you've really barely scratched the surface of the game if you're 8 hours in.
Click to expand...
How many of the so-called best RPG's have had "meh", "passable", "clunky", "solid", or "not-so-spectacular" combat?

For starters, here we go - Vampire: Bloodlines; Witcher series; Deus Ex (original); Planescape: Torment; FO3 + FO:NV; and Elder Scrolls RPG's.

RPG's are really supposed to be about choices / branching paths / decision-making; story; plot; characters; and atmosphere. The combat is supposed to be secondary to all of that stuff, TBH.

But, no - ever since Mass Effect 2, everybody expects RPG's to have incredible combat. Newsflash: ME2 wasn't a damn RPG, TBH; it was really a shooter-first with some RPG elements. A hybrid of the two, yes. Fantastic game + easily the best one in the franchise, but not entirely a RPG. A lot of the RPG elements there got chucked to the curb (Inventory, weaker upgrade system, modding to the weapons, etc etc).

Then, we have something like ME: Andromeda, which feels more like it's even going further down the shooter-first route with ARPG elements + also some regular RPG elements thrown in. I feel like I'm doing more ARPG-stuff (i.e. upgrading skills) + MMO-style side-quests w/ no choices than anything else + I don't feel like I'm making many decisions around here. At least not yet w/ the decision-making mattering, anyways - some 7 hours into this Trial Demo or so. And TBH - the story + character + plot stuff just ain't on the level & depth of the classic ME Trilogy.

EDIT:

There's a reason many players prefer FO3 + FO:NV over Fallout 4 - actual role-playing. Somehow, Bethesda figured out how to make a RPG (with the typical good, neutral, and evil choices found in FO games) that has also shooter elements work. Obsidian's FO:NV expanded on the RPG elements w/ even more decision-making & added much better narrative, character & story-telling depth.

B/c the combat wasn't so hot in FO3 + NV, the 100-point numbers system for skills (i.e. Guns, Speechcraft, etc) got thrown out and rolled into the Perk system w/ a few Stars you can upgrade (up to 10) for Fallout 4, streamlining the game - improving the combat. And if that wasn't enough, FO4 often just offers up just different shades of Good (i.e. Nice Good, Sarcastic Good, or still do the Good thing while being Evil extorting NPC for money/equipment) - again, simplifying + streamlining the RPG system that made previous FO's (Fallout 1+2+3+NV) so damn great in the first place.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Waggles said:
Sure are a whole lot of wrong opinions in here tonight.
Click to expand...
It's the internet itself.

Seriously, so many "REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE" screeches were sent up today, it's as if the hopes and dreams of millions of basement-dwelling man-children died in one instant.

Seriously, does it really matter that the new Doctor Who is a woman? It's not as if they didn't give a very clear signal by sending up a SEVERAL year test balloon where they had the primary antagonist (The Master) role played by Michelle Gomez.

But to go on Facebook, Reddit, or into the deep woods of the internet, you would think that someone personally came to each and every one of their homes, took a dump on the table, and then pissed in their cheerios.

Seriously, you're a science fiction show about a basically ageless alien that's lived over a dozen lives, bounces through time and across dimensions with all the difficult of a normal person crossing the street, and not giving a damn for causality or maintaining history, unlike just about every other time-traveler story ever. But the problem they all have is that this character becomes a woman, and this is the most horrible thing ever and completely negates all the canon ever?

Sigh. Seriously, the amount of stupid, entitled and embittered out there is just crazy.

But then, there has been some masterful trolling. I do hope there are some websites/forums tracking all this, because my god, there's got to be some people's Picassos and Rembrandts being fashioned right now.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Waggles said:
Sure are a whole lot of wrong opinions in here tonight.
Click to expand...
IAmTheCheapestFox said:
I personally think the idea that it takes 15-20 hours for a game to "git gud" is bullshit. If it doesn't grab me within an hour or two it's not good. Also, the idea that a response to the combat in TW3 sucks is "focus on the other stuff" is also bullshit. I played 5 minutes of Dark Souls and the combat sucked.
Click to expand...
bad fox

 
You all suck, and I could beat any of you in anything. Except sports games. Sports games are trash, and I guarantee you it's the genre and not my lack of investment in it.

 
IAmTheCheapestFox said:
I personally think the idea that it takes 15-20 hours for a game to "git gud" is bullshit. If it doesn't grab me within an hour or two it's not good. Also, the idea that a response to the combat in TW3 sucks is "focus on the other stuff" is also bullshit. I played 5 minutes of Dark Souls and the combat sucked.
Click to expand...
git gud

 
JSweeney said:
Seriously, you're a science fiction show about a basically ageless alien that's lived over a dozen lives, bounces through time and across dimensions with all the difficult of a normal person crossing the street, and not giving a damn for causality or maintaining history, unlike just about every other time-traveler story ever. But the problem they all have is that this character becomes a woman, and this is the most horrible thing ever and completely negates all the canon ever?
Click to expand...
What I dont understand is that many times in the show both of them have alluded to (or have actually been portrayed by) women. How is this any surprise at all, beyond the fact everyone knew it was coming anyway, but its still a damn scifi show and its already been mentioned that they've been women before. Let alone the whole 'who really gives a fuck ' aspect

 
Last edited by a moderator:
IAmTheCheapestFox said:
I personally think the idea that it takes 15-20 hours for a game to "git gud" is bullshit. If it doesn't grab me within an hour or two it's not good. Also, the idea that a response to the combat in TW3 sucks is "focus on the other stuff" is also bullshit. I played 5 minutes of Dark Souls and the combat sucked.
Click to expand...
I think you just need to stay away from RPG's then.

RPG's are normally built for the long-haul, for time-sinks + marathons - a game that normally takes its time to develop a lot of its actual story, plot, character stuff (i.e. Bethesda game - they'll give you tons of quests + stories, but don't often expect depth-galore; they give you a huge pool, but its waters are often shallow). Possibly + hopefully, with all of that story, plot, and character stuff - hopefully they add a lot of depth to all of that (BioWare & Obsidian seem to be the best at the depth part for RPG's on this stuff).

RPG's will often take a while for its gameplay, combat, and whatnot to get going b/c it might be also throwing lots of systems + story at the player. Throwing too much at once just...might not be a great idea, in a RPG. RPG's often have a hell of a lot going on, TBH.

RPG's are often slow-burns.

EDIT:

Waggles said:
15-20 hours. that's how long it took for things to click for me. It's about that point where you're proficient in combat and strong enough that exploring probably won't immediately get you killed. The starting area of the main continent is drab and depressing, imo, but everything else is so much better by comparison.
Click to expand...
Most RPG's seem to get better as they go along in the gameplay department, once you have more behind your character - more levels, more stats, more skills, more weapons, more items, more crafting, more systems, and things of that sort. You just have more your character can do, once things progress further along.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
While everyone here is whining about Gitting Gud, some real world changing shit is going on

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MK2TKFFtQA

I NEVER WOULD'VE EXPECTED THIS TO HAPPEN BACK IN 1992 OMFG

 
warreni said:
Disappointing and yet you give it an 8/10? It can't be that disappointing then. But, yes, you've really barely scratched the surface of the game if you're 8 hours in.
Click to expand...
It's disappointing in contrast to the reviews and non-stop hype it got. I will say it's picked up somewhat for me in the past 5 hours or so but it's still not grabbing me like a lot of the other massive top open world games I've played (BotW, Skyrim, etc) or dark souls, which got brought up for whatever reason. I mean, it's a good game, I just don't see it as the GOTY ALL YEARS OMG HYPE TRAIN HAS LEFT THE STATION it's been lauded as.

MysterD said:
How many of the so-called best RPG's have had "meh", "passable", "clunky", "solid", or "not-so-spectacular" combat?

For starters, here we go - Vampire: Bloodlines; Witcher series; Deus Ex (original); Planescape: Torment; FO3 + FO:NV; and Elder Scrolls RPG's.

RPG's are really supposed to be about choices / branching paths / decision-making; story; plot; characters; and atmosphere. The combat is supposed to be secondary to all of that stuff, TBH.

But, no - ever since Mass Effect 2, everybody expects RPG's to have incredible combat. Newsflash: ME2 wasn't a damn RPG, TBH; it was really a shooter-first with some RPG elements. A hybrid of the two, yes. Fantastic game + easily the best one in the franchise, but not entirely a RPG. A lot of the RPG elements there got chucked to the curb (Inventory, weaker upgrade system, modding to the weapons, etc etc).
Click to expand...
You're really fixating on my combat complaint as if I just said "witcher 3 has mediocre combat therefore it's a bad game." For me the bigger issue is that it's basically an interactive movie, the closest thing i can think of with this much dialogue/writing is planescape torment, which is a great game, but the writing worked better (to me) for planescape because it seems a lot more intrusive when it's presented in fully voiced/cutscene form. The frequency of the dialogue/cutscenes for me prevent me from feeling like I ever get fully immersed into a rhythm; the cutscenes/dialogue prevent from getting completely immersed into exploring the world and the actual gameplay, and the gameplay seems to break into the pacing of the story/dialogue - it just feels kind of disjointed. Feel free to disagree, that's just been my experience. Obviously you're right in that it really does have good writing/great graphics/choices and consequences (I assume anyway, W1 + 2 had some of the best C+C I've seen in modern rpgs), etc, which is why i still think it's a good game. It's just somehow the whole is less than the sum of its parts for me.

That said I have no idea how you can say the elder scrolls games are rpgs but not mass effect particularly when you say choices/plot/story/etc are so important for rpgs

tldr: witcher 3 is good just don't see it as best game evar sry for all i pissed off

 
Last edited by a moderator:
MysterD said:
I think you just need to stay away from RPG's then.

RPG's are normally built for the long-haul, for time-sinks + marathons - a game that normally takes its time to develop a lot of its actual story, plot, character stuff (i.e. Bethesda game - they'll give you tons of quests + stories, but don't often expect depth-galore; they give you a huge pool, but its waters are often shallow). Possibly + hopefully, with all of that story, plot, and character stuff - hopefully they add a lot of depth to all of that (BioWare & Obsidian seem to be the best at the depth part for RPG's on this stuff).

RPG's will often take a while for its gameplay, combat, and whatnot to get going b/c it might be also throwing lots of systems + story at the player. Throwing too much at once just...might not be a great idea, in a RPG. RPG's often have a hell of a lot going on, TBH.

RPG's are often slow-burns.

EDIT:

Most RPG's seem to get better as they go along in the gameplay department, once you have more behind your character - more levels, more stats, more skills, more weapons, more items, more crafting, more systems, and things of that sort. You just have more your character can do, once things progress further along.
Click to expand...
Or maybe I'll just stay away from RPGs that take 15-20 hours to get going and stick to the ones that are good from the start. Honestly, I think you're just full of shit at this point. How complex is a game that it needs to slowly introduce me to different elements in the game over 15 hours? I don't think real complex games (like strategy games or grand strategy games) take that long to get going.

 
MysterD said:
I think you just need to stay away from RPG's then.

RPG's are normally built for the long-haul, for time-sinks + marathons - a game that normally takes its time to develop a lot of its actual story, plot, character stuff (i.e. Bethesda game - they'll give you tons of quests + stories, but don't often expect depth-galore; they give you a huge pool, but its waters are often shallow). Possibly + hopefully, with all of that story, plot, and character stuff - hopefully they add a lot of depth to all of that (BioWare & Obsidian seem to be the best at the depth part for RPG's on this stuff).
Click to expand...
Nonsense. Fallout (pick one -- no, not Brotherhood of Steel or Tactics, smartass) was engaging from the word go. DA:O was good right in. The idea that a game should get a 10+ hour grace period is absurd. It's just poor game making and an insult to the customer if you're going to waste ten hours of their life before the game starts. Same thing with games where the dorks say "The REAL game starts at level 40!" or shit like that. Bitch, I got a million other games where the real game starts at the loading screen so don't even bother with that trash. This isn't like when you were eleven and got Laser Space Dragons 2 for your birthday and it sucked but you weren't getting another game until Christmas so LSD2 for the next six months it is. If you can't grab someone's interest in the first hour, you made a mistake somewhere. I'm not speaking specifically to W3 but any game with the excuse of "You need to play 10/15/20+ hours..." can go lick taints.

As for Dark Souls, I'm happy to just know that it's a genre I have zero interest in. People defend it by saying "But when you FINALLY beat the Zombie Plumber after 35,000 tries it's such a rush and accomplishment" and -- nope -- that ain't my bag. I feel nothing after fifty attempts aside from a quiet hollowness in my soul where the annoyance at having wasted money on a game that takes fifty attempts to beat one guy once smoldered. But, that's cool. That's what DS is and it doesn't pretend to be otherwise so I can leave it with lol2hard4u platformers and bullet-hell games and stuff like that. There's an audience for it but it's not me and that's fine.

 
pasports31 said:
It's disappointing in contrast to the reviews and non-stop hype it got. I will say it's picked up somewhat for me in the past 5 hours or so but it's still not grabbing me like a lot of the other massive top open world games I've played (BotW, Skyrim, etc) or dark souls, which got brought up for whatever reason. I mean, it's a good game, I just don't see it as the GOTY ALL YEARS OMG HYPE TRAIN HAS LEFT THE STATION it's been lauded as.

You're really fixating on my combat complaint as if I just said "witcher 3 has mediocre combat therefore it's a bad game." For me the bigger issue is that it's basically an interactive movie, the closest thing i can think of with this much dialogue/writing is planescape torment, which is a great game, but the writing worked better (to me) for planescape because it seems a lot more intrusive when it's presented in fully voiced/cutscene form. The frequency of the dialogue/cutscenes for me prevent me from feeling like I ever get fully immersed into a rhythm; the cutscenes/dialogue prevent from getting completely immersed into exploring the world and the actual gameplay, and the gameplay seems to break into the pacing of the story/dialogue - it just feels kind of disjointed. Feel free to disagree, that's just been my experience. Obviously you're right in that it really does have good writing/great graphics/choices and consequences (I assume anyway, W1 + 2 had some of the best C+C I've seen in modern rpgs), etc, which is why i still think it's a good game. It's just somehow the whole is less than the sum of its parts for me.

That said I have no idea how you can say the elder scrolls games are rpgs but not mass effect particularly when you say choices/plot/story/etc are so important for rpgs

tldr: witcher 3 is good just don't see it as best game evar sry for all i pissed off
Click to expand...
Elder Scrolls probably roll more so along the offline MMORPG area. They have their choices, every now and then - but yeah, nowhere to the level + extent that we'd expect from a BioWare + Obsidian & RPG. A lot of their choices, which are often in side-quests, often don't matter really too much anyways.

About Witcher 3 - technology has certainly evolved. When Planescape came out - 3D graphics, 3D engines, cut-scenes + movie-style cinematics weren't really a common-place thing for RPG's. Witcher series aims more so for the movie + cinematic experience, while Planescape's that insanely great book you read in getting its point across. Both will try to get you invested into their story, lore, world, characters, plot, narrative - even if they are long-winded with that stuff + really take forever for the actual game to get really going. Though, Planescape's not all voice-acted - so you can expect a lot more choices there b/c they didn't have to get voice-actors in the studio to match-up w/ their prose, they basically just wrote the damn thing.

We also have this problem of more open-world games are coming out than ever before, even in genres that just aren't RPG's - and since everybody seems to be copying the UbiSoft open-world + MMO-quest style template, some just aren't going to be impressed w/ that anymore or just got through playing an open-world game + is likely having open-world fatigue. We're also seeing more games like FPS's and action-games also adding some regular RPG and ARPG elements, as well.

EDIT:

About Mass Effect Trilogy - in the end, does your choices really matter that much? It might shape a lot of the story + journey, but it don't matter too much in the end, since the StarChild + the 4 choices at the end kind of screw most of that up in ME3 base-game's final horrible so-called "pay-off."

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Preedatore said:
Wow. Way to bring it. I feel so down on myself with the masterful trash talk you just laid down.

So sorry to have a contradictory opinion. I'm sure there's games that I enjoy that you and several others can't stand. That's life. No need to spout useless drivel in an attempt feel superior.

Maybe Mooby(you know, the one providing a reasonable argument) was right and I didn't give it enough time, but at this point in my life I can't devote hours upon hours to master something that feels clunky to me.
Click to expand...
maybe ur just bad. it's okay, learn 2 play.

 
Re: RPGs that take way too long to get going, that reminds me of Trails in the Sky. Got it in a Humble Monthly a while back, was excited to play what's supposed to be an acclaimed JRPG. Instead I spent the first 1-2 hours walking around and talking to NPCs without a single battle. Shut it down and never went back. Later I find out that the prologue can easily take 10+ hours to complete. No thanks.

Syntax Error said:
People defend it by saying "But when you FINALLY beat the Zombie Plumber after 35,000 tries it's such a rush and accomplishment"
Click to expand...
aSKfa4W.jpg


It shouldn't take that long to beat him. Just avoid his plunger attack and go after the fairly obvious weak spot and it's an easy fight.

 
Syntax Error said:
Nonsense. Fallout (pick one -- no, not Brotherhood of Steel or Tactics, smartass) was engaging from the word go. DA:O was good right in. The idea that a game should get a 10+ hour grace period is absurd. It's just poor game making and an insult to the customer if you're going to waste ten hours of their life before the game starts. Same thing with games where the dorks say "The REAL game starts at level 40!" or shit like that. Bitch, I got a million other games where the real game starts at the loading screen so don't even bother with that trash. This isn't like when you were eleven and got Laser Space Dragons 2 for your birthday and it sucked but you weren't getting another game until Christmas so LSD2 for the next six months it is. If you can't grab someone's interest in the first hour, you made a mistake somewhere. I'm not speaking specifically to W3 but any game with the excuse of "You need to play 10/15/20+ hours..." can go lick taints.

As for Dark Souls, I'm happy to just know that it's a genre I have zero interest in. People defend it by saying "But when you FINALLY beat the Zombie Plumber after 35,000 tries it's such a rush and accomplishment" and -- nope -- that ain't my bag. I feel nothing after fifty attempts aside from a quiet hollowness in my soul where the annoyance at having wasted money on a game that takes fifty attempts to beat one guy once smoldered. But, that's cool. That's what DS is and it doesn't pretend to be otherwise so I can leave it with lol2hard4u platformers and bullet-hell games and stuff like that. There's an audience for it but it's not me and that's fine.
Click to expand...
While the opening video from FO1 was a great set-up, eh; that first area in Fallout 1+2 wasn't that exciting, TBH. Once you get past the tutorial + done killing rats in both opening, both do get good. Namely, once you make your way to the first town, TBH.

FO:NV had a better opening than all of those, TBH - with you getting shot in the head, left for dead, you survive, and then things really get going pretty quickly TBH.

 
MysterD said:
While the opening video from FO1 was a great set-up, eh; that first area in Fallout 1+2 wasn't that exciting, TBH. Once you get past the tutorial + done killing rats in both opening, both do get good. Namely, once you make your way to the first town, TBH.
Click to expand...
I hope to God it didn't take you over an hour to leave the first stages of FO1 or 2. Do you play via a sip-and-puff mechanism?

 
MysterD said:
While the opening video from FO1 was a great set-up, eh; that first area in Fallout 1+2 wasn't that exciting, TBH. Once you get past the tutorial + done killing rats in both opening, both do get good. Namely, once you make your way to the first town, TBH.
Click to expand...
To me the tutorial almost shouldn't count, it's rare for any game's opening 5 minutes/tutorial to be amazing. There's a stark contrast between "hey these 5 minutes of killing rats in the tutorial is kinda lame" vs "this game gets great once you get past the first 20 hours"

 
Vampire: Bloodlines has a much better opening than all of those (Fallout 1+2+3), TBH. Plus, you can even actually skip the Tutorial section, if you so desire.

In most games, tutorials are great for the first time through - i.e. the whole baby-and-growing-up thing from FO3. But in a replay - eh, wish I could just start at coming out of The Vault.

They really often aren't necessary on a replay. If you been through a game once or know a game well, you likely want to skip the Tutorial stuff on a replay; especially if it's just gameplay teaching stuff.

 
Foxhack said:
While everyone here is whining about Gitting Gud, some real world changing shit is going on

{Geese Howard from Fatal Fury series is DLC for Tekken 7}

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MK2TKFFtQA

I NEVER WOULD'VE EXPECTED THIS TO HAPPEN BACK IN 1992 OMFG
Click to expand...
That's awesome!!!

Fatal Fury, Street Fighter 2, Mortal Kombat - man, those were some good times for fighting games.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
pasports31 said:
I struggle to come up with another game that rivals the melee combat in it, let alone does it better. That may be personal preference, a lot of people might prefer god of war/bayonetta type 3rd person combat which is very different than ds.
Click to expand...
Ninja Gaiden Sigma was the sh!t in both style and combat. It was challenging but it wasn't cheap. And yes, it's not God of War either.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Foxhack said:
While everyone here is whining about Gitting Gud, some real world changing shit is going on

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MK2TKFFtQA

I NEVER WOULD'VE EXPECTED THIS TO HAPPEN BACK IN 1992 OMFG
Click to expand...
Because Tekken didn't exist in 1992.

 
Last edited:
I dont put too much stock in prologues for rpgs, some of the best I've played have had boring intros. That said I liked the W3 intro area so who knows.

Part of me liking W3 so much very well could be from having played the first 2 games and reading some of the books. I am a little ocd and do most all side stuff first before mainquest stuff so maybe I had a longer gap between cutscenes or something as I never had an issue with them.

I feel we should bring this thread back to Pubg since I just got a duo chicken dinner :)
 
So an impulse purchase on Amazon during Give Amazon Your Money Day was a Fire HD 8 tablet.  Someone else mentioned it here, I forget who and something about not being able to install Google stuff on there.  This might be helpful, a video showing you how to get the Play Store on there.   I like the thing so far, even with lower picture quality the size makes it much nicer for web browsing or youtube than my smartphone.  

 
Master Miguel said:
I dont put too much stock in prologues for rpgs, some of the best I've played have had boring intros. That said I liked the W3 intro area so who knows.

Part of me liking W3 so much very well could be from having played the first 2 games and reading some of the books. I am a little ocd and do most all side stuff first before mainquest stuff so maybe I had a longer gap between cutscenes or something as I never had an issue with them.

I feel we should bring this thread back to Pubg since I just got a duo chicken dinner :)
Click to expand...
Yeah, I was fine w/ the Yennefer + Ciri stuff all in the Intro in W3. It really sets-up this game story + character-wise, since you are (as Geralt) going to be searching for Ciri in W3. If you also consider how W2 at the very last (very-rushed) chapter + especially very end of W2 really sets up the stuff w/ Yennefer for W3.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top