Gamers Thread

i never really played any much before GTAV so there's gonna be way more novelty there for me, but it's obviously remarkable in a lot of ways irrespective of that. i'd probably be sick of the series by now if i'd played that many of them though.
 
Grand Theft Auto V is so much fun. I really like the character Trevor because doing all the bad stuff like killing everyone for no reason makes sense when you play as Trevor. I need to finish the story sometime when I am not working so many hours.
 
no country for old wainds said:
i never really played any much before GTAV so there's gonna be way more novelty there for me, but it's obviously remarkable in a lot of ways irrespective of that. i'd probably be sick of the series by now if i'd played that many of them though.
Click to expand...

Yeah, definitely feels like one of those franchise where your favourite is going to be the one that you played first. GTA3 was my first and so will always hold that nostalgic value. Vice City was an improvement in terms of gameplay in every way, but was still essentially more of the same. I just still preferred the missions and character cast from GTA3. I’m sure if I played it now it’d feel lacking. Definitely has not stayed as one of my favourite games over the years - lacks the timeless quality and emotional attachment for me.
 
Used loads of hours on GTA V. Had to stop as there are so many great games to play. Too many games, not enough time. Same for Fallout 4. Now i am looking forward to Anthem and FarCry 5. With all these new releases, and also a active Destiny 2 player, i dont know if i will have time to sleep.
 
Been following GTA since 3. 5 is definitely the best in the series for a number of reasons. I need to play online more though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CiG
I know I'm five years late to this but I just finished Mass Effect 3 and I can honestly say without a modicum of hyperbole that the ending was literally worse than the holocaust

  • So first of all, the big choice at the end was presented so badly I actually picked an ending other than the one I intended to. I thought that the choice would be decided after walking into the Crucible beam, so I ended up picking the Synthesis ending even though I'd decided on the Destroy ending. I realize now that it was visually indicated you were supposed to shoot an energy tube (why??) so call me an idiot for missing that if you wish but I tend to get spectacle fatigued easily from action games/movies and it makes it a little hard for me to process visual stimuli sometimes.
  • Second of all, making a choice that impacts the entire galaxy is much less interesting than making a choice that impacts the characters you've grown invested in. As it was there were almost no directly character-affecting decisions in the game's final hours, and I found this colossally disappointing especially after playing through the wonderful Citadel DLC which went a long way toward fostering attachment toward all the major characters and priming you for some difficult choices in the climax... choices that never come. As far as I can tell, the survival of your team in the final mission depends entirely on your Effective Military Strength.
  • It's also disappointing that for a series that covers such a great breadth of themes, the ending choice boils down to a stance on AI: integrate, destroy or control? Which is basically the exact same choice Deus Ex gave you back in 2000, and it made a hell of a lot more sense in that game.
  • From the beginning, this series did a pretty good job being hard sci-fi, offering decently convincing scientific explanations for things like biotics and antigravity. I read most of the Codex entries and I was often awed at the depth of the world-building. Fast-forward to ME3 and we have a main plot based around building some kind of planet-sized magic wand that'll do... something. Since no one knew exactly what the Crucible would do, did it not occur to anyone that since 1) many previous cycles have attempted to build the Crucible before coming to an end, and 2) the Crucible was created by the Reapers, or by the creators of the Reapers, the activation of the Crucible might actually be what ends cycles?? I know this didn't happen, but my point is that it made no sense for everyone to put their faith into the Crucible, especially after the reveal that the Catalyst was the Citadel. This is bad enough but the ending reaaally drove home the stupid with the Synthesis ending. So somehow the Crucible is able to change every cell in every being in the galaxy, which perfectly preserves their function but makes their skin glow green...
  • Fuck that kid
  • On a positive note, the final confrontation with The Illusive Man was very tense. Great performance by Sheen. The way you could see him gradually come to understand that the words coming out of his mouth weren't his was very well done, at least that was how it played out for me.

On the whole I loved the game, I would say it was objectively better than ME2 on roughly 9 out of 10 points, but goddamn that ending left a bad taste.
 
ME 1-3 forms a complete story and should be played in that order. One of the hallmarks of the series is that your choices carry over from game to game.

Did my holocaust comparison entice your interest?
 
I retract my PotC comparison, ME3 was probably the best game in the series despite the bafflingly terrible ending.
 
Vegard Pompey said:
On the whole I loved the game, I would say it was objectively better than ME2 on roughly 9 out of 10 points, but goddamn that ending left a bad taste.
Click to expand...

Even though I highly doubt you could follow through on this claim, video games do have objective parameters that most other forms of art do not have. For example, if there are mechanical issues that's objectively bad.
 
not always. i mean, PATHOLOGIC kinda built its reputation on how its various mechanical problems only added to the 'wrongness' of its atmosphere. sometimes those kinds of things can make something good, even if it's in a different way to how it was intended (and these days indie developers are starting to imitate mechanical issues for some conscious purpose, like glitches or w/e). same principle as having shitty production on your album i guess? although i'm sure there are many production jobs so hideous or mechanical errors so crippling that there'd be no way of defending them as beneficial.
 
Well, a mechanical issue in a game that causes it to crash at a specific juncture every time is an objectively shit quality it would seem, I should have went with a much more extreme example I guess. Games these days are always slowly patched and updated and I doubt it has much to do with artistic motivation but rather functionality.

I'd like to read Vegard's case for objectivity either way because I still haven't played ME3 even though I've owned it since release date. :tickled:

Reading his bullet points I don't see anything objective about his points.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

K
Ultimate gaming thread!
Replies
103
Views
4K
Katatonia
RatU a.k.a Dainon
R
Dak
The Madden (Gayness) Thread
Replies
42
Views
2K
GMD Social Forum
NoumeGnon
N
Dustin
the Gamers thread
Replies
12
Views
2K
Katagory V
Dustin
D
Tramz
The New Console & Video Game Thread
Replies
23
Views
3K
OSA Lounge
C.
C
Virgil.
Blur (awesome game!!!)
Replies
2
Views
493
Bar
Virgil.
V
Top Bottom