Last game you finished, tell us about it

Fluent likes game length, I love game music. Any game I play that doesn't meet a certain musical standard for me will get knocked down a lot. I think if a reviewer is upfront about what they want to see in a game, you just adjust your personal review and move on. You like steak. I like chicken.

OTOH, for the past decade or so, I started preferring the shorter game lengths. After years of growing up with the original Wizardrys, M&Ms and Ultimas, 200 hour games was the norm. But as I got older, I started relishing the shorter games that I could fully play and complete.

And then Fallout 4 happened. I have over 700 hours in that game. All with the same character. Right now I'm playing a kind of Rocket man with the game by exploring all the higher elevations. I also just discovered a new game I could play with all the radio signals called seek and discover. (there are a couple dozen radio signals). I'm literally 3 steps away from completing the main quest but I don't want to.
 
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
1,762
Location
Los Angeles area
I wanted it to be a huge game and got a medium, small-ish sized game.

In other words, it was your own expectations that caused you to feel let down. :)

For future reference, a quick Google search beforehand can give you an idea how long a game is.
 
Joined
Oct 21, 2006
Messages
39,410
Location
Florida, US
In other words, it was your own expectations that caused you to feel let down. :)

For future reference, a quick Google search beforehand can give you an idea how long a game is.

I think you're missing my point.

When a game is the brother/sister game to Baldur's Gate, certain expectations are created.

Baldur's Gate 1 took me exactly 100 hours to beat. Baldur's Gate 2 is supposedly even longer. Okay, great. That's Baldur's Gate. So, Icewind Dale will be epicly huge and long too, right?

Wrong. The game just started getting really good and then it's over. Too quick.

Fluent, you didn't finish Heart of Winter or Trials of the Luremaster, so complaining about the length is kind of silly if you ask me. Given you probably finished Tales of the Swordcoast in your BG adventure, the comparison is hardly fair. :) For instance, it took me 85 hours to complete Icewind Dale EE last year (that's everything but on PC.)

I didn't finish the expansions due to an issue with my dad's tablet. However, you are right, and I concede that the game length with those expansions would be more. Honestly, I forgot that I didn't finish them, or else I would have noted that. My bad. :)

85 hours still seems high, but I believe you. I don't know how much time my dad and I spent with the game, actually, but it wasn't that long. Essentially, as I said, it started getting really good in Dorn's Deep, and then the game is over.

Unlike, say, Divinity: Original Sin, which kept getting better and better, and just when you thought the end was near - nope. It kept going. It was brilliant.

Icewind Dale: EE was brilliant, too. But just over a little too quickly for my tastes. Don't kill me over this, fellas. I love the game and think it's great. I just wish the base game was a little longer is all.

But I will say that I will go back and play the expansions sometime, and hopefully that will lead to a meatier, longer game. :)
 
dNdF8Ir.png


Definitely one of the more entertaining games I've completed, however it does suffer from the mid and late game becoming incredibly easy because you outscale it, as well as the late game becoming slow because enemies have a lot of life yet you are completely invulnerable making victory a slow, yet foregone conclusion. I cut the devs a fair bit of slack on balancing here as they didn't have that many testers so it's likely these problems persisted because people didn't find them, not because the developers were lazy or incompetent or anything like that. They also still did a better job than most for the following reasons:

Status effects are actually useful! Instead of just spamming damage and killing the screen before it moves, stuff like damage over time, buffs, debuffs, stuns, etc are actually useful and worthwhile uses of actions. In fact just spamming damage is considerably slower and less effective than say, stacking bleed/burn/poison.
Damage over time has some unique mechanics. Basically it deals damage every unit turn and every global turn, so fast units are hurt more by them and because they decay slowly (burn/poison) or not at all (bleed) and come in non trivial quantities doing something about them is an important part of the game. Also, because stuns prevent unit turns, they do reduce your damage. Normally this would make stuns useless, but since the alternative is stunlocking fights because Action Economy it actually works out favorably.
Non combat mechanics that are actually useful and not just a gimmick or a noob trap. Sure you can focus purely on combat skills, but then you miss out on a lot of stat buffing items (Knowledge of Herbs), starve crossing certain terrains (Knowledge of Terrains) and on the higher difficulties at least waste absurd amounts of resources or even die from traps and locks. There's also more direct utility, like Mercantalism (every item costs less and sells for more), and the identify skill I forgot the name of (saves money and time).
It's perhaps the only game that does survival right despite not being a survival game. People don't starve after a few minutes after all, and so even the highest difficulty lets you carry 4 days of food + however much you find, hunt for, or carry in the form of cereal plants. It's still a factor, but mostly it just makes rest spamming tedious which, given it's a pretty degenerate and noobish "strat" is a good thing.

All those are game mechanics related because that's the primary thing I look at. If a game has weak, boring, or one dimensional mechanics I'll lose interest very quickly. I have roughly... 600 hours between the GoG and Steam versions and am not completely done yet so draw your own conclusions from that.

As for the other stuff...

The music is pretty good but you'll probably get tired of the normal battle music eventually.
The story is merely ok, and is made infinitely better by reading all of Grillin's lines in your choice of a shrill female voice or Krillin's voice or both.
The graphics are fairly good. Some people complain about the 2.5D, but that's a pretty silly complaint. Considering it was made on a 10k budget they really made the most of what they had, even though yes the animations are sometimes clunky.
The whole navigation/exploring element is very good, they don't call him Gaulen the Explorer without a reason. My only complaint here is that it's not at all apparent where you can and cannot walk between gaps in the trees, and since there's often secrets hidden in forests that results in a lot of tree humping. No wonder people commonly question the main character's sexual preferences.

The only thing the game really needs is balance/pacing work. This is actually something I was working on, though progress on that particular project has been paused for a while because of lack of outside interest and because I was busy/focused on other things.
 
Joined
Mar 10, 2016
Messages
91
I think you're missing my point.

When a game is the brother/sister game to Baldur's Gate, certain expectations are created.

Baldur's Gate 1 took me exactly 100 hours to beat. Baldur's Gate 2 is supposedly even longer. Okay, great. That's Baldur's Gate. So, Icewind Dale will be epicly huge and long too, right?

Wrong. The game just started getting really good and then it's over. Too quick.

No, I get your point. It just doesn't make much sense.

It's a different game from a different developer. For some reason, you took it upon yourself to assume that it was going to be as long as BG. Not their fault.

That's ok though because you still managed to overrate the game as you usually do. At least it's a genuinely good game this time. :)


@Celerity - Congrats on finishing LoX, and good review. :thumbsup:
 
Joined
Oct 21, 2006
Messages
39,410
Location
Florida, US
I have roughly… 600 hours between the GoG and Steam versions and am not completely done yet so draw your own conclusions from that.

You the man. I got 206 hours into Lords of Xulima. How did you get so much? Multiple Characters and playthroughs? Did you leave your computer on when you went on vacation . . . :)

I remember their kickstarter campaign and I was not impressed. But word of mouth, far after release, changed my mind and I got the game and it turned out to be one of the best RPGs I played in 2014.

The funny thing about that game is I can easily put the game in my top 10 list of all time. But the story was so predictable (I knew all, about half way through) and forgetable, that when ever I compose a top ten list (I do this about every other month-silly me), I just about always forget about Lords of Xulima. It 's my Twilight Zone. Every time I compose a top 10 TV show list I always forget about Twilight Zone.

and BTW, the music in LOX was spectacular.
 
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
1,762
Location
Los Angeles area
When I play an Infinity Engine game that is the step-brother/sister to Baldur's Gate, I want an epic, long adventure. At 40 hours we are just warming up

IWD is a different kind of game than BG (or Divine Divinity). It's a little less story/party character driven and more combat focused. It's more reminiscent of the Gold Box D & D games which, if I recall correctly, could probably be finished in a dozen hours or so.

It's more like a cousin to Baldur's Gate :)

Still, a game that is challenging and consistently fun for 40 hours still deserves the full score - with no points taken away for length. Icewind Dale 2 was a bit longer and nowhere as good. I'd rate IWD a 9 and IWD2 a 7.
 
Joined
Feb 24, 2007
Messages
775
Location
NYC
No, I get your point. It just doesn't make much sense.

It's a different game from a different developer. For some reason, you took it upon yourself to assume that it was going to be as long as BG. Not their fault.

That's ok though because you still managed to overrate the game as you usually do. At least it's a genuinely good game this time. :)
:

Overrate the game? Uh, this thread is called "Last game you finished, tell us about it", is it not? I was telling you what I thought of the last game I finished. Give me a break. :rolleyes: I didn't realize the objective police would be out even in a thread like this.

IWD is a different kind of game than BG (or Divine Divinity). It's a little less story/party character driven and more combat focused. It's more reminiscent of the Gold Box D & D games which, if I recall correctly, could probably be finished in a dozen hours or so.

It's more like a cousin to Baldur's Gate :)

Still, a game that is challenging and consistently fun for 40 hours still deserves the full score - with no points taken away for length. Icewind Dale 2 was a bit longer and nowhere as good. I'd rate IWD a 9 and IWD2 a 7.

That's your opinion. I wanted the game to be longer and it felt too short to me. What's too short to me might not be too short to you. But guess what? They're all opinions and neither of us are right or wrong. :)
 
You the man. I got 206 hours into Lords of Xulima. How did you get so much? Multiple Characters and playthroughs? Did you leave your computer on when you went on vacation . . . :)

Multiple runs + extensive yet incomplete mod work.

steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=538266546

I remember their kickstarter campaign and I was not impressed. But word of mouth, far after release, changed my mind and I got the game and it turned out to be one of the best RPGs I played in 2014.

The funny thing about that game is I can easily put the game in my top 10 list of all time. But the story was so predictable (I knew all, about half way through) and forgetable, that when ever I compose a top ten list (I do this about every other month-silly me), I just about always forget about Lords of Xulima. It 's my Twilight Zone. Every time I compose a top 10 TV show list I always forget about Twilight Zone.

and BTW, the music in LOX was spectacular.

I missed it until well after it was actually out, which is unfortunate. I've been burned by bad/falsely advertised games enough times that I have a strict screening process that sometimes blocks good ones.

As for the story, yeah it was. But I find most plots predictable, and not just because I'm good at reading between the lines.

And since we're on the subject of game length anyways: RPGs do set certain expectations in that regard, I'm very nonplussed by the South Park RPG thing because if I buy an RPG I expect more than 6 hours out of it. That and it's more aimed at fans of South Park (which I'm not) than fans of RPGs, and the sheer amount of coddling makes me wanna slap a fool. I consider it the latest in an unfortunately long series of games where you can get the complete experience by watching someone else play and save your money. But that's another subject.

I don't expect every RPG will be some multi hundred hour master piece, and if given the choice between a medium length game and an artificially lengthened long game I'd take the former. Of course if a game is fairly long and has non zero replay value so much the better.
 
Joined
Mar 10, 2016
Messages
91
Just finished a fresh playthrough of Baldurs Gate 2. Man I love that game! :) I've put countless hours and hours into it over the years, but I still keep finding new stuff. I posted in a different thread about my newfound mystery shopkeeper (who ahem it turned out everyone else knew about :) ), but my major new find this time was the Twisted Rune. How did I miss that every other time I played it?!!! I have no idea.

Ahhhh I love it I really do. I probably won't go back to it for another five years or so but I'm sure I'll have a great time when I do. Next time, I'm going with an evil cleric I think. I always play goody-two-shoes in BG2 so it will be nice to play a badass for a change...
 
Joined
Apr 13, 2012
Messages
1,901
Location
UK
I tend to agree with JDR with IE games, Fluent.

BG and IWD are different type of games. Just because they both use IE engines, doesn't mean they have to be similar. PS:T is also entirely different beast. I don't think it's fair to compare BG and IWD that way, it's like comparing apples and oranges. It would make more sense if IWD was advertised as spiritual successor to BG or something. I think BG was more balanced game overall, whereas IWD focuses on combat and PS:T is primarily story driven. All of them are excellent games but it really comes down to individual's taste in terms of which is better.

Also, I don't give 10/10 or even 9/10 so easy. I think it's silly so many games out there are perfect or near-perfect. I'm actually quite against the reviewers giving out way too high scores and make people think 7/10 is a crap game. In pure math term 5/10 should be dead set average but these days 9/10 is becoming average which makes scoring system literally meaningless.
 
I never give anything a numerical score. Anyone who can't read words can't think for themselves anyways, and the numbers are meaningless anyways for reasons already explained by others. Combine that with the silliness of people actually raging because x game recieved y number when it should have been z and some very facepalm inducing companies actually basing the financial welfare of the development team on hitting some arbitrary score (usually Metacritic, which anyone that can use a computer can single handedly dominate anyways)?
 
Joined
Mar 10, 2016
Messages
91
I mean, a numerical score has to be understood as a subjective thing. Even if you clearly define what aspects you're taking into consideration, both the evaluation of each aspect, and the weight of it over the final score is subjective. As an example, prepare your tomatoes because my personal score for Oblivion is much higher than my score for Skyrim. Why? well, the main complaint I see people have about Oblivion is the level scaling, which I didn't have any particular issue with, but the removal of spellcrafting to me was a critical error in Skyrim. So the same game for someone else who hates level scaling will have a much lower value for Oblivion.

And as long as people understand scores are a subjective measure, it's all fine. Problem is when it transcends that and it's used for game development contracts, that means devs will be more focused into making sure they hit the required checkmarks most reviewers seems to prefer, instead of making their own game.
 
Joined
Sep 23, 2008
Messages
5,645
Location
Tardis
Yeah, that's what I mean about the late game. It's something I'm working on fixing as well as making the game harder.
 
Joined
Mar 10, 2016
Messages
91
I finished Sword Coast Legends last night after ~35 hours with my level 17 human Paladin.
I quite enjoyed the game overall. It wasn't a masterpiece by any stretch of the imagination but a nice little RPG nonetheless.

The really sad part here is all the wasted potential. There are a ton of things done well and done right like how they managed to capture the classic D&D fantasy atmosphere, the art style and art direction, the general visual quality, the motivating character creation and character development, good loot system (maybe a little too good since you will end the game with hundreds of thousands in gold ;) ), a few nice companions, some good old dungeon crawling especially from act 2 forward making the game feel like an epic journey at times and a great soundtrack (with contributions by Inon Zur).

On the other hand there are many more or less glaring oversights and minor annoyances that add up and taint the whole experience unnecessarily. I'm not really interested in the DM part at all so it's almost painful for me to think about what the single player could have been without so many resources diverted to the DM module.

Anyway, the game's primary weaknesses in my opinion were a slow start to the otherwise quite decent story, many rather boring side quests (some good ones as well though), an almost complete lack of challenge on the normal difficulty level (maybe a handful encounters required "serious" micromanagement), way too much backtracking (the game should have had more exits!), pathfinding issues, lacking quest markers & descriptions, a lack of alternative quest solutions and choices with consequences and finally quite a few minor (visual) bugs.

When the game is at its best, however, it can be quite addictive even (just one more level, just one more quest, just finish this dungeon) and the fact that I managed to finish it, proves to me that they did an overall decent job in spite of the game's shortcomings.
It's still painful to think about what it could have been though *sigh*... oh well, I will probably pick up the Rage of Demons DLC once that comes out and goes on sale. Should be fun to continue this adventure and I hope they have listened to the fan feedback.
 

Attachments

  • SwordCoast_2016_03_13_15_40_56_438.jpg
    SwordCoast_2016_03_13_15_40_56_438.jpg
    121 KB · Views: 98
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
3,201
I want to like SCL but I ended up giving up after a couple hours both times I tried playing it. The magic system in particular seemed underwhelming. You've talked me into having another go, Moriendo. :) I imagine I can overlook the shortcomings of I can just get into the swing of it…
 
Joined
Apr 13, 2012
Messages
1,901
Location
UK
Finished my 2nd playthrough of Pillars of Eternity with the expac and 3.0 stuff. I failed a single quest: Durance one, for some reason I never got the last update despite having him in my party all the time. I guess I should have talked to Magran at the Council of Stars. Saying that, his ending was perfect. I did everything else.

I can say that 3.0 is much improved gameplay wise and the expac content is very good and I think my future characters are going to worship Ondra: OCD hoarder are just awesome when they are gods.

edit:
I forgot to mentioned though that they really need to work on their loading time and performance. Toward the end of the game loading zones took an eternity and I had a few "Unity Engine lock-up" in more spell-crazy encounters (aka boss fights).
 
Last edited:
Joined
Oct 13, 2007
Messages
7,313
edit:
I forgot to mentioned though that they really need to work on their loading time and performance. Toward the end of the game loading zones took an eternity and I had a few "Unity Engine lock-up" in more spell-crazy encounters (aka boss fights).

Is this new from the latest patches? I don't remember having that issue when I played it, but then again I have a SSD drive, if you don't, get one now :)
 
Joined
Sep 23, 2008
Messages
5,645
Location
Tardis
Is this new from the latest patches? I don't remember having that issue when I played it, but then again I have a SSD drive, if you don't, get one now :)

I have a SSD and it's not new problems. Loading times gets progressively worst as you play since the game has been released. They fixed some of it (spells and chant causing save bloating), but I haven't played 2.0 to see if 3.0 is worst than it is. It's not as worst as 1.0 was though. It's just that the last few hours had like 30-40sec loading screens.

As for the lockup, they happened in version 1.0 too. Saying that, the lock-up I experienced were in new content instead of the old one, but I got similar lock-up in all Unity games I played but one (Deus Ex: The Fall).
 
Joined
Oct 13, 2007
Messages
7,313
Back
Top Bottom