Jerykk wrote on May 16, 2011, 23:14:
Space Pirates and Zombies looks like it may be the spiritual successor to Star Control 2. I just wish it weren't an Impulse-exclusive.
nin wrote on Mar 8, 2011, 09:16:
Glad I didn't order it on Steam.
Next stop, $10 xmas sale!
justice7 wrote on Jan 26, 2011, 10:05:
I don't know how they're going to manage the story driven side of this to flow with the multiplayer side. It's not like Mass Effect or Dragon Age were multiplayer...
We'll see what happens
Fibrocyte wrote on Jan 18, 2011, 08:37:
This is why consoles will always be superior to PCs.
DrEvil wrote on Nov 30, 2010, 14:59:
Wrong.
DrEvil wrote on Nov 30, 2010, 14:37:
Entirely new players to the game often get blown out of the sky even in "safe" zones due to EVE's insistence on "PvP all the time".
Tumbler wrote on Nov 30, 2010, 13:34:
They should probably make certain parts of this game free to play. Like frigates and frigate related skills. It bugs me that you have to pay them $15 a month to train skills in many cases. I finally got into Gallente carriers and things are so f-n expensive. The skill is 550 million isk alone. The ship is around 650 million isk. The weapons/equipment should be close to a billion isk. To put that into perspective a 30 day time code that you can purchase in game costs 300-350 million isk. And I can earn that in about a week gaming casually but the game requires obscene amounts of time to convert your efforts into isk through market trading, resource moving, pricing updates, it's just so fucking tedious. The last 2 months I played the game I just logged in to change skills and kept telling myself you should really run a mission or 2 ....but I hated sitting there for 2 hours with an armor tank waiting for all the ships to blow up. (I was a drone boat) Combat felt like a built order in starcraft, there was a step by step process to kill targets and it often involved tedious drone management. The alternative is to use guns on your ship and just target each ship then hit F1,F2,F3,F4,F5,F6, etc, wait for ship to explode, next, same thing.
The combat looks fun...but I think it's a scam. It's not fun. It's boring as fuck. This is made all the more painful by the fact that everything that gets blown up is gone for good. So those huge battles you see in trailers are literally months in the making and the chances of you seeing something cool or being involved in something like what you see in the trailers is (in my experience) is virtually nill. Watch the eve online tournament films, that is combat with carefully designed teams to be fair and combat is still ridiculously boring. It's all about beating the other teams tanks. It would be so much cooler if combat was more like what you see in trailers where there appears to be a reason to be tactical in where you are and how your fleet is positioned.
Jerykk wrote on Sep 24, 2010, 04:30:Oh and also apart from the great performance and nicely implemented UI. Oh and finally good/decent player physics. Apart from the nice animations and weapon effects it really is a downgrade.
What? The game does not perform well given its fairly mediocre presentation. There's some nice texture work but that's about it. The UI is improved over the Gothic games but I liked Risen's UI better. Physics were pretty wonky, as my character would often get stuck on collision and then suddenly slide 10 feet away.
Other notable downgrades:
1) Combat is fairly mindless. Roll in, pull off a three hit combo, then roll away when enemies charge up to perform their slow and extremely obvious power attacks. In Gothic 1&2, fights were far more engaging. You had to perfectly time your attacks, blocks and dodges. In Arcania, you just roll around all the time. As mentioned in an earlier post, it feels more like Divinity 2 than Gothic.
2) NPCs don't seem to care about you invading their house and stealing their stuff.
3) Invisible walls everywhere. Why can't I wade into a shallow pool of water?
4) You can see perfectly fine at night. Night-time was serious business in the Gothic games because you couldn't see anything, requiring you to carry a torch. Even then, it was risky to travel at night because the torch only had a limited light radius and you never knew what you might run into.
5) You can instantly eat food and use potions while moving. This undermines the intensity of combat. In Gothic, you had to stop and slowly drink potions or eat food, which meant it wasn't a viable option during combat. Here you just drink potions while rolling around.
6) Way too easy. In Gothic 1&2, your first encounters with Goblins or Mole Rats usually ended in death. You had to learn their attack patterns before you stood a chance. in Arcania, just mash the attack button and then roll away before enemies do their power attacks.
So yeah, based on the demo, I think Arcania definitely feels like a downgrade from Gothic. Note that the issues all pertain to fundamental parts of the game which will remain the same in the full version.
Risen is a far worthier successor to Gothic.
InBlack wrote on Sep 15, 2010, 09:36:
Two words. D&D online. That game would rock with 3.0 or 3.5 rules.
Oh, and as far as the pen and paper game, Ive read the rulebooks (gasp!!). And obviously now that the 3.5 edition is out of print, people have to go to extreme lengths and expenses to get them. So your comment about enjoying 3.5 is at least partly false...
InBlack wrote on Sep 15, 2010, 04:39:
Its still misdirected because I was talking in the context of LICENCED D&D games which includes PC games, not the Pen & Paper roleplaying game. All the licenced games are d&d 4.0 and yes this PREVENTS me from enjoying them. This is plain for anyone with comprehension skills since my original post is about 5 sentences long.
JoeNapalm wrote on Sep 14, 2010, 15:38:
Wait...I can never keep this straight...is that a Straw Man argument, or Ad Hominem?
Prez wrote on Aug 10, 2010, 06:49:
This looks like a great indie RPG but the price is a tad high imho. After all, I'd have to buy 2 or more so I could play over my LAN at home.