What games are you playing now?

I found the cold line of spells, ending with blizzard the best for AoE, because of the freezing status effects (as well as damage). Good for crowd control. :)

Thats what I need really... a way to make sure I am not attacked by more than i can chew. Grease have actually been a lifesaver in many battles. It made the night in Redcliffe quite easy to keep everyone alive.
 
Joined
Oct 26, 2006
Messages
6,027
I love it too. I nuke them: if I am behand a corner or door, I possition my melees close to it. Then my main ( a mage) casts blizzard and after that an earthquake (or two if I have 2 mages with me) and if I can, I will cast an electric storm on it too.
When they reach me it is just clearing the ones left.

Luckely or a pitty(because I like it this way) it doesn't go everywhere
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
1,086
Location
belgium-genk
And I found the key to be able to do this properly means it works best if the mages can run behind the melee group after casting since their AOEs have limited ranges and they need to attract the attention of the enemies without getting hit or splattered with their own spells. Best to have a very wide / zoomed out view of the field to do this properly.
 
Joined
Aug 18, 2008
Messages
15,679
Location
Studio City, CA
Being a dedicated healer/buffer I will probably not be able to make a damage dealing mage, I would probably not even be able to afford the mana. I guess this also make a very different character than the classic damage-dealing one.

I maxed out the Arcane branch early on. Arcane Bolt is always a decent killer, cheap, recharge quickly and ranged. I ceased to use Arcane Shield since my tanks are incredibly effective at drawing aggro.

Being a Healer, Spirit Healer and Healing are my primary branches. I combine Heal, Group Heal and Regeneration to keep people alive. If you ask me I think they take a bit more damage than what can be expected but I heard the game was difficult so I wont whine. I usually go with a Mass Rejuvenation after a few moments into the battle to recover mana faster and allow my attackers to recharge their attacks.

Being a buffer I put a good use of the Enhancement tree, especially Heroic Offense and Heroic Defense. I often plant both on my damage dealer at first (Sten) since he tends to take too much damage and miss alot. Haste costs to much mana.

I am not so fond of the Summoning branch. I always use my Spell Wisp, but I barely see an effect with Spellbloom (seems useless for a single mage) and I had hoped for Stinging Swarm to be more effective. Grease is a spell I use often though.

I am currently placing my points in the Glyph tree. I look forward to trying these out as they seem to be able to fill many of the strategic holes I have atm.

At this point in the game it's difficult to begin to specialize in new directions, and I already bought all tomes in the game. That means I am stuck with what I got, meaning that I might be able to max out a single element if I put everything in it. My Mage is a buffer/healer and damn good at it too. I took a risk in focusing my character the way I did, but it worked out very well. My fighters and my archer already dish out pretty good damage. I am more concerned about defense at the moment.

It seems like Mana Drain isn't a waste, since it's a free fire-and-forget spell.
 
Joined
Oct 26, 2006
Messages
6,027
Glyphs are good for defense - just not as effective as the frost and energy lines. There is a glyph a combo that does good damage and stunning - just make sure to stay out of its area of effect!
 
Joined
Aug 18, 2008
Messages
15,679
Location
Studio City, CA
I'm alternating between DeathSpank for mindless hack'n'slash fun and Fantasy Wars for that meticulous tactical turn-based goodness. Highly enjoyable games, both of them.
 
Joined
Jan 16, 2010
Messages
34
Location
Sweden
Was rolling along in Discples 2, feeling good because i was winning my battles, seizing territory, upgrading to feeling badass. I'm all dancing around the perimeter of the enemy city w/ my parties like lions waiting for the right moment to descend on the prey.
Suddenly a couple packs of demons emerge from blasts of flames and wipe everyone out. Such is life in the realm of Disciples lol
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
5,228
Location
San Diego, Ca
I have a date with Hades tonight for my first time. We'll see if Evelyn Dreamkiller can handle the. big guy. ;) Hopefully she can farm him for a few glowing orbs...
 
Joined
Aug 18, 2008
Messages
15,679
Location
Studio City, CA
Well, right now 1 USD is just under 3 PLN, and the game costs here 180 PLN (you could get is slightly cheaper I think) so yeah, around 60 bucks. Most new games cost around 100-120 PLN (unless it's EA) which is approximately 30-40$. 60$ is not a normal price for a PC game; sure, console games can cost even more than that, but that's console games. The most I have ever payed for a game was 140PLN (~45$) but that was like Vampire The Masquerade: Bloodlines, and I never ever go above that price for a normal edition of a game, 'cause that's just ridiculous. So I'll wait. But I am disappointed with Blizzard nonetheless.

Hmm. In the shops around here, SC2 is priced just like any other new PC game, in the 400-500NOK range (65$-80$), depending on store.

 
I was thinking about leaving SC2 to when my next university course have begun.

In my new philosophy there are games to play while studying/working and games to play during summer. Heavy RPG's such as Dragon Age, Risen, Drakensang, Witcher etc that claims 60 hours of playtime is for summers and during winter. Games that can be finished in a day or two (most shooters or adventure games) or have reasonable places to break (like after a RTS level) is ok to play after work or while relaxing on a weekend.

That said, games like Dragon Age or Witcher that claims 120 hours worth of content almost feels "too long".
 
Joined
Oct 26, 2006
Messages
6,027
That said, games like Dragon Age or Witcher that claims 120 hours worth of content almost feels "too long".

The Witcher is nowhere near that long. I agree though, some crpgs do tend to drag on. There are some areas in Dragon Age that would have been better served by not being so repetitive.
 
Joined
Oct 21, 2006
Messages
39,129
Location
Florida, US
How can a good game like TW or DA be to to long ?
I love it, instead of games you finish in like 20 hours of gameplay
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
1,086
Location
belgium-genk
How can a good game like TW or DA be to to long ?
I love it, instead of games you finish in like 20 hours of gameplay

It depends on the content, though, doesn't it.

I can't speak for The Witcher - but DA:O had WAY too much filler combat - and they could have easily improved the game by cutting that aspect in half.

I certainly would have enjoyed it more.
 
I am currently playing through Batman: Arkham Asylum (story is finished, trying to beat the challenges right now). While it is a very good game with fantastic presentation, magnificent script and good voice acting it is also proof how full of shit game journalists sometimes are. Without looking at it and say Alpha Protocol through rose coloured glasses the games actually share many gameplay problems. Yet one game gets 10/10, sells 10 times as many copies and is branded game of the year. What's best of all, no game journalist points out the same flaws in it's reviews that the other game gets dragged through hell for. No, these paragraphs get saved for when it's time to start the hype machine for a sequel.
 
Joined
Sep 30, 2008
Messages
369
Location
Estonia
How can a good game like TW or DA be to to long ?
I love it, instead of games you finish in like 20 hours of gameplay

I barely remember when I begun playing this thing and I have done very little else with my time than playing it for I think a week now and I am barely half way through and it makes me think on what I do with my life. It is a great game, it is really perfect in many ways, but I think you shouldn't get lost in the same game for so long. That comes from someone who beated FF7-XII...
 
Joined
Oct 26, 2006
Messages
6,027
I am currently playing through Batman: Arkham Asylum (story is finished, trying to beat the challenges right now). While it is a very good game with fantastic presentation, magnificent script and good voice acting it is also proof how full of shit game journalists sometimes are. Without looking at it and say Alpha Protocol through rose coloured glasses the games actually share many gameplay problems. Yet one game gets 10/10, sells 10 times as many copies and is branded game of the year. What's best of all, no game journalist points out the same flaws in it's revies that the other game gets dragged through hell for. No, these paragraphs get saved for when it's time to start the hype machine for a sequel.

Batman was technically ultra-slick, and the developers understood what kind of game it was, and what kind of audience they were targeting.

Can't say the same for AP, unfortunately.

I believe both games used the same engine, though perhaps different iterations. In any case, the visuals in Batman are EXCELLENT and the animations superb. AP was a clunky mess in comparison.

That said, I still think AP is a better game - disregarding the atrociously designed bossfights, but I like the emphasis on RPG elements.

It's a case of either being able to look at this from a neutral standpoint or not, and people claiming AP should have been a smash - really are quite blind to the realities of the industry.

That's my claim, anyway.
 
The gameplay problems that both games share i'm referring to are:

1. Sloppily designed boss fights, that gameplay wise have nothing to do with how the rest of the game plays. Poison Ivy bossfight in AA was at least as bad as universally loathed Bryako bossfight in AP. Also, while i didn't mind fixed position camera sessions during the short platformers in The Scarecrow's world using that kind of camera in bossfights was just inexcusable.
2. You can use stealth throughout most of the game only to discover that in certain situations it's pretty much useless.
3. Stealth gets its job done, but could have been implemented much better. You have very few visual and audio clues as to how well hidden you are. Given that the games share an engine i wouldn't be surprised if it was due to the engine. The stealth certainly feels similar aside from AP-s weird crouch animation.
4. Encounter and enemy design in general is weak and encounters get boring fast.

Now, these are all serious problems the way i see it. Yet they get mentioned in the reviews for one game and forgotten in the revies of the other. Why?
 
Joined
Sep 30, 2008
Messages
369
Location
Estonia
The gameplay problems that both games share i'm referring to are:

1. Sloppily designed boss fights, that gameplay wise have nothing to do with how the rest of the game plays. Poison Ivy bossfight in AA was at least as bad as universally loathed Bryako bossfight in AP. Also, while i didn't mind fixed position camera sessions during the short platformers in The Scarecrow's world using that kind of camera in bossfights was just inexcusable.

Because such fights belong in comic book action games A LOT more than "plausible" and "serious" stealth CRPG games with poor shooter gameplay.

2. You can use stealth throughout most of the game only to discover that in certain situations it's pretty much useless.

Well, an annoyance - but hardly a huge problem, and are you sure some reviews haven't touched on this? I seem to recall some critics mentioning stealth issues in both games.

3. Stealth gets its job done, but could have been implemented much better. You have very few visual and audio clues as to how well hidden you are. Given that the games share an engine i wouldn't be surprised if it was due to the engine. The stealth certainly feels similar aside from AP-s weird crouch animation.

Hmm, very subjective. I thought the stealth aspect was superior in Batman, but the game didn't seem to rely on it to the same extent.

4. Encounter and enemy design in general is weak and encounters get boring fast.

Another subjective thing, that I wouldn't agree with in particular - for either game.

The combat system in Batman is highly entertaining, and though I only got halfway through it, I never really had any kind of issue with repetitive enemies. For AP, that sort of goes with the genre, I think.

Now, these are all serious problems the way i see it. Yet they get mentioned in the reviews for one game and forgotten in the revies of the other. Why?

Maybe because you're reading what you want to read?

Several reviews have touched on the issues I mentioned with AP, and as such I think they're quite fair. Some are too harsh and some are too lenient.

Certainly, Batman is a hype-marketed game - but it was skillfully executed. I don't think it really has any significant downsides, considering what it's trying to do. It's just not my kind of game, overall.

Now, AP COULD be my kind of game - but Obsidian went about making it like they were incompetent. I don't know what went wrong, but something VERY clearly did.
 
I barely remember when I begun playing this thing and I have done very little else with my time than playing it for I think a week now and I am barely half way through and it makes me think on what I do with my life. It is a great game, it is really perfect in many ways, but I think you shouldn't get lost in the same game for so long. That comes from someone who beated FF7-XII…

Have you played Titan Quest or NWN 2? At least Dragon Age held my attention. Which, in my book, is a good thing. Other long games make me feel sometimes, "oh no, more enemies, areas; let's take break". I never felt the need to take a DA holiday once I started the main campaign.
 
Joined
Aug 18, 2008
Messages
15,679
Location
Studio City, CA
Back
Top Bottom