What game are you playing now?

[Trygon]

I got a Steam coupon! And it's for a game I actually want! And I actually have money! What an improbable alignment, indeed. So, I just got Valkyria Chronicles, and I'm ultra-stoked to take my adventures in SRPG a step further. Will report back over the following days.

Also, I caught wind of an early game (brokenly powerful) grinding spot...? Anyone know anything about that~?

 

[BlisteredBlood]

You weren't the only one. Though I think I'll hold onto mine for a bit.

In other news, there's a franchise deal for Orcs Must Die 1 and 2 along with their respective DLC for 90% off! Can you say "score"?

 

[Mitsu]

Black Ops III is free on PC until Sunday. My opinion of it is the same since the beta on PS4, but it's something to play. If anyone is on Steam and wants to play, hit me up.

 

[Fruit]

Started playing Far Cry: Primal.

So far it sucks. I hate the over reliance on Melee weapons. I feel like I'm playing Skyrim or something >,>

 

[MellowYellow]

Been playing Minecraft. It's a good time killer, and it's been keeping me busy for the lead up to any worthwhile new releases.

Dark Souls 3, or Mortal Kombat XL. Decisions decisions...

Started playing Far Cry: Primal.

So far it sucks. I hate the over reliance on Melee weapons. I feel like I'm playing Skyrim or something >,>

As a general rule, avoid Ubisoft like the plague.

 

[Fruit]

I actually loved the third Far Cry game and thought the fourth had good elements that overshadowed its drawbacks. I expected Primal would be a nice game to try because the era is barely represented in the industry but so far the game is barely enjoyable. I'll admit I'm still at the start and there is a chance it will get better once I unlock more of the game's features, but it will take me a while to get used to the melee mechanics. I thought the game would be mostly firing arrows and throwing spears but I'm finding myself swinging clubs more than I'd like.

 

[BlisteredBlood]

As a general rule, avoid Ubisoft like the plague.

There is only two games I'll ever play from Ubisoft, and those are Rayman Origins and Rayman Legends. End of story.

 

[Mitsu]

Ubisoft makes some good games. I've heard good things about the most recent Splinter Cell, as well as Assassin's Creed: Black Flag. Far Cry 3 is a very fine game as well, and Blood Dragon is a blast. South Park is also a pretty good game. It seems kind of... ignorant to outright say that you should avoid the studio entirely. It's okay to mention that you personally don't like the games, but to offer advice to others to not go near them is kind of sad. They have produced good games, despite some buggy launches as of late. To an experienced gamer who has played Assassin's Creed through the fourth or fifth title might find the newest entries as dull and repetitive, but for someone who has never played a title in the series, how can anyone levy those same criticisms at them? On their own merit, that series has titles that offer gameplay that you really can't find anywhere else.

 

[MellowYellow]

Stick of Truth was not developed by Ubi, it was done by Obsidian. And while Obsidian's projects can get glitchy, they at least tend to give a crap about things other than the bottom dollar. Beyond that you've got Watch Dogs, an overhyped underwhelming mess of a game that was completely blown out of the water by its contemporaries, The Division which already looks like complete trash, and the conveyer belt of glitchy mediocrity known the Assassin's Creed series. Even taken on their own merits there's little to preach about, given that Syndicate was little more than 'Arkham London', and Black Flag felt like it was part of a different series entirely. And need we even discuss the *ahem* 'issues' that Unity had? If it is a persons first time with the series (rare, but I'd say it's possible) then the argument has some merits but even then I think most people can say 'holy crap they've made nine versions of this?'

Far Cry 3 was good, but it felt like a bit of a fluke in retrospect given that Far Cry 4 seemed to want nothing more than emulate it as closely as possible, and then managing to come off as worse for that heinous plot. Blood Dragon was admittedly solid, and in a sane world Ubisoft would have canned Primal at the first opportunity and instead shifted focus to making a more full-length version of that.

It's not being 'ignorant', it's being aware. I personally, and several friends, have gone through battered wife syndrome with Ubisoft. 'This year will be different, this time they'll change their ways' and then once the new release comes around it's underwhelming, massively downgraded from what was promised, and there's likely some contemporary counterpart that outdoes it. And then the cycle repeats. Can Ubi make good games? Oh sure, they've got the money and experienced workers. But if you're gonna by Ubi, then you'd best avoid buying at launch and watch any newly uploaded content like a hawk.

 

[Mitsu]

Stick of Truth was not developed by Ubi, it was done by Obsidian. And while Obsidian's projects can get glitchy, they at least tend to give a crap about things other than the bottom dollar.

Well... no fuck?! Are you telling me that South Park was developed by Obsidian, and only published by Ubisoft? Are you also telling me that the game was ready to be thrust into development limbo, but then Ubisoft came in and saved the project, without meddling in the development? Gee golly, thanks for the wave of enlightenment.

The fact that they published the game is a good thing, and worth mentioning. They've also bothered to get the Rayman franchise going again, which speaks to them not being ALL that bad. They're just as "bad" as any other game publisher. But damn, dude, what a revelation.

Beyond that you've got Watch Dogs, an overhyped underwhelming mess of a game that was completely blown out of the water by its contemporaries, The Division which already looks like complete trash...

I wasn't aware that games couldn't still be enjoyable when there are other exemplary examples within the genre. What are these examples anyway? Are any of them OBJECTIVELY superior to Watchdogs, therefore you cannot possibly ever recommend Watchdogs to anyone? Will 10 out of 10 people all agree that Watchdogs is an utter failure within the face of these wonderful games that are blowing it out of the water? Also, I'm curious if there are people out there that have enjoyed the game. I mean... I guess no one out there has ever enjoyed it.

I've played the Division beta, and it is FAR from complete trash. Your preference to go into this conversation with such hyperbole makes me think you have a chip on your shoulder, or a complete lack of objectivity. It has a very functional and slick cover system, with TPS gameplay that is just as tight as any game I've played. Mechanically the game works as perfectly as you could expect any game to play. So, on what grounds is the game looking like complete trash? Some subjective boo-hooing over the story or aesthetics? Also, to their credit, Ubisoft is saying that they don't want to include micro-transactions into the game. We'll see if it rings true, but if it is true, then... wow... they must not be all that bad.

Even taken on their own merits there's little to preach about, given that Syndicate was little more than 'Arkham London', and Black Flag felt like it was part of a different series entirely. And need we even discuss the *ahem* 'issues' that Unity had? If it is a persons first time with the series (rare, but I'd say it's possible) then the argument has some merits but even then I think most people can say 'holy crap they've made nine versions of this?'

Mario
Zelda
CoD
Battlefield
Arkham
Doom
Pokemon
Fire Emblem
Final Fantasy (most)
Dragon Quest
Souls
GTA
Street Fighter
Valkyria Chronicles

The list goes on and on. All of these games are very similar from release to release. Yet, some of them (ANY NON NINTENDO GAME) gets hammered for being the same. Each one adds some new things to varying degrees, but ultimately they are all examples of the genre they are in. Why is it such a bad thing that Ubisoft is telling different stories, uniquely inspired by history, within the same type of game? I mean, you're talking about Souls and Mortal Kombat being two games you are looking forward to. Each one isn't too far off from their predecessors.

Also, what is so wrong with mediocrity in a game? Does every game ever, in the existence of the world, have to achieve a level of greatness that is worth sucking the developer's dicks over? It's okay if a game is just good, or fine, or NOT amazing. I've played games that are far from amazing and had a great time with them.

Far Cry 3 was good, but it felt like a bit of a fluke in retrospect given that Far Cry 4 seemed to want nothing more than emulate it as closely as possible, and then managing to come off as worse for that heinous plot. Blood Dragon was admittedly solid, and in a sane world Ubisoft would have canned Primal at the first opportunity and instead shifted focus to making a more full-length version of that.

That's what you do with a winning formula: you emulate it. They wanted to make just as good, or even better, game. What do people really want? More of the same. Did they fail? That's entirely subjective, and I'm sure I'd have my own opinion if I played Far Cry 4. Does it make any sense for them to just go apeshit and make something that's a complete 180? Originality isn't the only key to success. Considering how well the Assassin's Creed titles sell, I'm sure that Ubisoft is doing SOMETHING right to capture the money, time and attention of hundreds of thousands of people.

The shoddy launches are bullshit, I'll agree.

It's not being 'ignorant', it's being aware. I personally, and several friends, have gone through battered wife syndrome with Ubisoft. 'This year will be different, this time they'll change their ways' and then once the new release comes around it's underwhelming, massively downgraded from what was promised, and there's likely some contemporary counterpart that outdoes it. And then the cycle repeats. Can Ubi make good games? Oh sure, they've got the money and experienced workers. But if you're gonna by Ubi, then you'd best avoid buying at launch and watch any newly uploaded content like a hawk.

Yes, it is being ignorant. Your'e throwing out bad advice in the face of a track record of games that are probably worth playing. You're looking at your vast experience of sitting in your room playing games, and saying that the entirety of Ubisoft is to be avoided. You didn't say some of their games, a series of games, but ALL of them. It's such an extreme stance that I cannot even take you seriously as an adult who can form opinions. It sounds like you were discouraged over the games not living up to your standards, and then decided that the publisher was worth no person's time. If this isn't your opinion then don't speak in such drastic terms. I'm not even really that into Ubisoft, and I probably wouldn't put them in my top 10 favorite developers/publishers. I just couldn't help but roll my eyes are your post.

 

[MellowYellow]

Stick of Truth was not developed by Ubi, it was done by Obsidian. And while Obsidian's projects can get glitchy, they at least tend to give a crap about things other than the bottom dollar.

Well... no fuck?! Are you telling me that South Park was developed by Obsidian, and only published by Ubisoft? Are you also telling me that the game was ready to be thrust into development limbo, but then Ubisoft came in and saved the project, without meddling in the development? Gee golly, thanks for the wave of enlightenment.

The fact that they published the game is a good thing, and worth mentioning. They've also bothered to get the Rayman franchise going again, which speaks to them not being ALL that bad. They're just as "bad" as any other game publisher. But damn, dude, what a revelation. .

Aw shucks thanks for flaying me alive for pointing out a simple fact. I was referring to Ubisoft as a developer, not as a publisher, and Stick of Truth shouldn't be taken into the equation for not being something they personally developed.

I wasn't aware that games couldn't still be enjoyable when there are other exemplary examples within the genre. What are these examples anyway? Are any of them OBJECTIVELY superior to Watchdogs, therefore you cannot possibly ever recommend Watchdogs to anyone? Will 10 out of 10 people all agree that Watchdogs is an utter failure within the face of these wonderful games that are blowing it out of the water? Also, I'm curious if there are people out there that have enjoyed the game. I mean... I guess no one out there has ever enjoyed it.

I've played the Division beta, and it is FAR from complete trash. Your preference to go into this conversation with such hyperbole makes me think you have a chip on your shoulder, or a complete lack of objectivity. It has a very functional and slick cover system, with TPS gameplay that is just as tight as any game I've played. Mechanically the game works as perfectly as you could expect any game to play. So, on what grounds is the game looking like complete trash? Some subjective boo-hooing over the story or aesthetics? Also, to their credit, Ubisoft is saying that they don't want to include micro-transactions into the game. We'll see if it rings true, but if it is true, then... wow... they must not be all that bad.

GTA V was the main example, mainly because Ubi went out of their way to make attack ads against GTA because in their arrogance they believed Watch Dogs would be the killer app. And like so many others that tried to break into the crime sandbox genre (with the arguable exceptions of Saints Row and Sleeping Dogs) it didn't work out. People are free to enjoy it, even though most accounts I've heard is that people found it underwhelming in most regards, and a lot more likely would have enjoyed it if Ubi hadn't made it out to be the second coming of Jesus.

The Division, between the visual downgrades (which I find somewhat acceptable because most everyone does that crap these days) suffers from a bland aesthetic style, some painful sound design, and AI that comes across as on the challenged side. It hasn't been as shilled as Dogs was, but it's still another case of another prophecized 'next gen experience.'

Mario
Zelda
CoD
Battlefield
Arkham
Doom
Pokemon
Fire Emblem
Final Fantasy (most)
Dragon Quest
Souls
GTA
Street Fighter
Valkyria Chronicles

The list goes on and on. All of these games are very similar from release to release. Yet, some of them (ANY NON NINTENDO GAME) gets hammered for being the same. Each one adds some new things to varying degrees, but ultimately they are all examples of the genre they are in. Why is it such a bad thing that Ubisoft is telling different stories, uniquely inspired by history, within the same type of game? I mean, you're talking about Souls and Mortal Kombat being two games you are looking forward to. Each one isn't too far off from their predecessors.

I didn't mention any of those franchises, so I don't particularly see why they're being thrown in my face. I'm sure many of the same criticisms could be levelled at those franchises at any rate.

As for why I'm giving Souls and MK the benefit of the doubt, it's for the simple fact that FROM and Netherrealm haven't let me down yet. Do I discount the possibility that they might? No, but I'm more willing to meet them halfway than a dev that's mostly let me down. That and games like Souls are a bit harder to come by, and fighting games too aren't all that common. I mean yeah there's some, but the verdict on SF V hasn't been too good so far.

Also, what is so wrong with mediocrity in a game? Does every game ever, in the existence of the world, have to achieve a level of greatness that is worth sucking the developer's dicks over? It's okay if a game is just good, or fine, or NOT amazing. I've played games that are far from amazing and had a great time with them.

Mediocre games are fine... so long as the people behind them don't promise you the sun and the moon before handing it over to you. I enjoyed games like, say Bound By Flame or Dragon's Dogma because I was able to temper my expectations. No massive hype generators, no bloated back-patting ceremonies, just a game being delivered to me with a modest amount of exposure. Like I said, I would have probably enjoyed Watch Dogs more if they hadn't spent year after year hyping it up as the first true next gen experience, the GTA killer, the best thing since sliced bread. If I'd simply been told off the bat that I'd be getting a simple crime sandbox with a modest hack function, I would have been more receptive.

That's what you do with a winning formula: you emulate it. They wanted to make just as good, or even better, game. What do people really want? More of the same. Did they fail? That's entirely subjective, and I'm sure I'd have my own opinion if I played Far Cry 4. Does it make any sense for them to just go apeshit and make something that's a complete 180? Originality isn't the only key to success. Considering how well the Assassin's Creed titles sell, I'm sure that Ubisoft is doing SOMETHING right to capture the money, time and attention of hundreds of thousands of people.

The shoddy launches are bullshit, I'll agree.

They did a mad 180 with Blood Dragon and that paid off relatively well. Yet they didn't follow through with that one.

Yes, it is being ignorant. Your'e throwing out bad advice in the face of a track record of games that are probably worth playing. You're looking at your vast experience of sitting in your room playing games, and saying that the entirety of Ubisoft is to be avoided. You didn't say some of their games, a series of games, but ALL of them. It's such an extreme stance that I cannot even take you seriously as an adult who can form opinions. It sounds like you were discouraged over the games not living up to your standards, and then decided that the publisher was worth no person's time. If this isn't your opinion then don't speak in such drastic terms. I'm not even really that into Ubisoft, and I probably wouldn't put them in my top 10 favorite developers/publishers. I just couldn't help but roll my eyes are your post.

Is 'avoid like the plague' hyperbolic? Maybe. But what I'd ultimately say is that people should be a lot more cautious around Ubisoft's releases. They've proven themselves great at generating hype, it seems their primary business model these days. If you are going to buy from them, then approach with some skepticism and research so you know what you're buying from them. Or, better yet, avoid the hype engine entirely and just buy at your leisure, it'll probably be a more enjoyable experience in the long run.

 

[Fruit]

Most video game developers these days are milking their titles *points at Crapcom*. Ubisoft is hands-down guilty with AC, and I've stopped playing the series after Black Flag. Though in all honesty, many developers are equally guilty like that, that's why I love Naughty Dog. But seriously, you wouldn't boycott Deus Ex or Hitman just because Square Enix is milking the Final Fantasy series and over hyped Thief, would you?

Splinter Cell: Blacklist was amazing, Far Cry isn't nearly as repetitive as the AC series, and was Primal really over hyped? I wasn't expecting much of it, I was merely intrigued by the game setting. I haven't played anything since I finished PP a month ago so it seemed like a good game to pick up.

Oh, and when it comes to game mechanics, I sincerely believe Far Cry 3/4 were some of the smoothest FPS games ever made, just like CoD. People still buy their games despite the repetition and constant recycling. I'd even argue that the Uncharted games are almost identical to each other save for a few unique missions. Its only fair that you stay away from such an amazing series if you think Far Cry is repetitive.

 

[MellowYellow]

Most video game developers these days are milking their titles *points at Crapcom*. Ubisoft is hands-down guilty with AC, and I've stopped playing the series after Black Flag. Though in all honesty, many developers are equally guilty like that, that's why I love Naughty Dog. But seriously, you wouldn't boycott Deus Ex or Hitman just because Square Enix is milking the Final Fantasy series and over hyped Thief, would you?

Splinter Cell: Blacklist was amazing, Far Cry isn't nearly as repetitive as the AC series, and was Primal really over hyped? I wasn't expecting much of it, I was merely intrigued by the game setting. I haven't played anything since I finished PP a month ago so it seemed like a good game to pick up.

Oh, and when it comes to game mechanics, I sincerely believe Far Cry 3/4 were some of the smoothest FPS games ever made, just like CoD. People still buy their games despite the repetition and constant recycling. I'd even argue that the Uncharted games are almost identical to each other save for a few unique missions. Its only fair that you stay away from such an amazing series if you think Far Cry is repetitive.

Well... quite a bit could be said about Squeenix's handling of it's western brands, Thief in particular, but at least they took their foot off the clutch when everyone simultaneously slapped them for that 'augment your pre-order' nonsense. Plus Hitman seems to be returning to form, so maybe they're learning?

Blacklist was pretty good, particularly after Conviction, but damn if losing Michael Ironside wasn't a crushing blow to the series. FC 3 was good, and from a gameplay perspective 4 was too... plot however gave it a damn good kicking. 'Who would you rather help, the Khmer Rouge? Or Ayatollah Khomeini?' Not uh... inspiring, and lacking in the great character drama that Jason Brody had. Primal, to my recollection, was at last E3. That or the similar game Sony was referencing.

 

[Mitsu]

Mellow Yellow, so basically, your entire argument comes down to: marketing made a fool of my wallet! What do you think it's supposed to do? Do you really think these people are just going to market their game as "okay".

"The game is okay, Pete, so make sure you tell the boys in marketing to hammer that point home. I want as many shrugged shoulders, and look overs as possible. Let's not get excited here, and try to generate interest in our product by spiffing it up in the advertisements."

I understand the concept of outright telling lies, and how that's not acceptable. I also understand the idea that things change over the course of a games development. Ever wonder why so many companies are so tight-lipped about how far along the game is? It's because the game changes so often during development that it's just risky to say anything (among other reasons). E3 was a venue where developers would show of their game in its early stages, so that they can show the promise of tomorrow. They then realized that it generated bad press, because the final product could be rather different. Now it's a spectacle of an investor meeting, and they HAVE to make it look like they're bringing it harder, faster, and better than everyone else to keep the rich people with the money happy.

Everything you see at E3 is carefully managed by marketing and executives, and is mostly there to generate hype and keep clueless investors happy. You should remember: E3 is a concept show. What you see at E3 is in no way indicative of what the final product will be. If you don't understand this by now, or that it took you so long, that's on you.

Want to see some BAD games? Go look at Steam Greenlight, or take a peek at any of the Youtube channels that regularly comment on actual shitty games. The AAA titles that we love to grill are actually all pretty decent games in the larger scope of things. Have you actually played a bad game? A game that literally does not work, looks horrible, plays like it was broken, and has basically no production value? It's like criticizing one of the basketball players that sit on the bench, because the're not tearing down the roof every night like Jordan was in the 90's. They're not Jordan, but they're still pretty good.

I'm all for criticizing video games. I do it all of the time. If I love something, I tear it apart to the best of my ability. Nothing is perfect, and nothing is sacred. I just find it silly and foolish to outright use the statement you posted. What did you seek to accomplish? A pat on the back, and a bunch of people agreeing with your stance? Some shit on Ubisoft party? It's such a general and bold statement that it's mind boggling that you would even make it.

That's basically all I have to say, and we should move on. If you have more to say, PM me or make a new thread.

 

[Caitrionna]

I'm playing the oldie Alice Madeness Returns on the PS3. I just LOVE that game.
Though at the moment I have a hard time getting playstation time, because my beloveds are in a Minecraft Spree. I never quite understood Minecraft so I resort to playing here on BMR.

 

[Mitsu]

Somehow I have Mafia II on Steam, so I'll probably play it at some point today. I've never played this one or the first one. Any thoughts or opinions?

 

[Trygon]

Yeah, I just beat that recently. Same situation, think I got it from a Humble Bundle maybe? Anyway.

The game isn't GTA, despite appearances. There's very little 'open world' stuff to do aside from collecting some good cars, which is worthwhile, but there's only half a dozen really decent vehicles in the game. The plot is unremarkable but competently acted and written, and I'd say it's the high point of the game. Despite serious pruning during dev (There were originally several endings, and the wartime opener was several chapters long instead of a tutorial), the game manages to be perfectly fun junk food. Slam out the main missions, beat it, uninstall it.

 

[Mitsu]

I guess I'll give it a spin; thanks.

 

[Xanaphia]

Trying to play Undertale, I don't understand the hype so far.

 

[SithLordOfSnark]

Been playing Minecraft. It's a good time killer, and it's been keeping me busy for the lead up to any worthwhile new releases.

Dark Souls 3, or Mortal Kombat XL. Decisions decisions...

Started playing Far Cry: Primal.

So far it sucks. I hate the over reliance on Melee weapons. I feel like I'm playing Skyrim or something >,>

As a general rule, avoid Ubisoft like the plague.

I don't agree simply based on the fact that IMO Assassin's Creed (minus the third installment) is the best series of games in history.

 

[BlisteredBlood]

Been playing Minecraft. It's a good time killer, and it's been keeping me busy for the lead up to any worthwhile new releases.

Dark Souls 3, or Mortal Kombat XL. Decisions decisions...

Started playing Far Cry: Primal.

So far it sucks. I hate the over reliance on Melee weapons. I feel like I'm playing Skyrim or something >,>

As a general rule, avoid Ubisoft like the plague.

I don't agree simply based on the fact that IMO Assassin's Creed (minus the third installment) is the best series of games in history.

Is Assassin's Creed the best series of games in history? Of course. I ain't denying that shit at all. It deserves every accolade and award it's got. But is it suffering from the same amount of fatigue that other franchises like Call of Duty has been suffering for the longest time? I'm sorry to say that yes, it is.

Ubisoft seems to think that everything has to be everything about AC and give us yearly releases of the same game over and over again in terms of mechanics and story instead of letting the fans want it. Let the current game - whatever number or name it is now - marinate like a pot roast, add some garnish here and there for flavor and...

Well fuck. Now I'm hungry.

But the point I'm trying to get at here is that they've been rushing titles out the door instead of giving people the ability to want it.

 

[Erit of Eastcris]

Bouncing between getting my ass kicked in XCOM 2 and hating the enchanter RNG in FATE. Only reason I'm not just stomping around in Diablo III is because I have to get a new mouse and can't be bothered to go shopping yet.

On that note, if anyone happens to have tips for handling Archons (the gilded floaty-bastards with the hitting sticks) beyond flashbanging the sin out of them, I'd be very grateful.

 

[James London]

I want to do a Very Hard/Very Hard campaign for Russia in Medieval II Total War, but Poland and Hungary are just too strong. Even if I blitzed them, I'd have the Holy Roman Empire, Byzantine Empire, and Venice to contend with.

 

[how_is_you]

Hopping between Action Henk, which is a nice little platforms on the Xbox One but it has been out a while on PC, and Mortal Kombat XL, since the new netcode that they are using is glorious for a MK game. GGPO is so much better than...whatever the hell they were using previously.

 

[BlisteredBlood]

Got my hands on Omikron: The Nomad Soul, Soul Reaver: Legacy of Kain and the original Tomb Raider trilogy from the Squeenix sale. Why? I had 10 bucks to burn and I needed some nostalgia in my library while and I wanted to experience something different for once with one of Quantic Dream's masterfully woven games.