I see your point, but to write off an entire series because of immature writing in one game...I disagree with you there.
Er, I think Terra was still recommending New Vegas, and possibly 3.
---
It isn't out yet, but Castle Story looks very cool. RTS, Minecraft-style building but with physics in play, control a bunch of guys as they build and explore and fight. Just watch the trailer, which is the first two minutes of the video on the top. Looks like there's also going to be experimentation with magic. Multiplayer as well. They're far over their Kickstarter goal already, so there's going to be a lot of polishing and refinement.
Er, I think Terra was still recommending New Vegas, and possibly 3.
Indeed I was. New Vegas is a great game and does the setting, feel and themes of the series far better than any other game in it, while having fairly decent graphics and solid controls. I wholeheartedly and without hesitation recommend it. I'm a bit more on the fence about 3, but I did like it a lot better than I did the old one.
And I take you mean apart from the fact that 3D graphics are still displayed in pixels because that's how monitors work and that Fallout 1 and 2 had a rather bland, uninspired look based on having brown people in brown clothes stand on brown dirt, Triscuitable. Then you're totally right. Nothing remotely dated about graphics like this:
I mean, it's not like any kind of evolution had happened to get to this:
__________________
Last edited by Terraoblivion : 07-30-2012 at 02:45 PM.
No, I don't think that Wasteland is a good looking game. However, it had shoddy graphics, even for it's time. Look at a game like Yoshi's Island, or Zelda 2. They still have a lot of detail, and are overall excellent games.
Now look at Ocarina of Time. It aged horribly.
Goldeneye? Horribly.
Mario 64? Barely hanging in there.
Hell, even a load of GameCube games are starting to look bad. Will a lot of NES and SNES games look bad? Yeah, because graphics were just as difficult to make in '85 as they are in 2012. Does New Vegas look bad? It's certainly not holding up well, for being two years old.
Fallout runs in 640x480. In 1998, it looked great. If you use a mod to increase the resolution, the details are maintained, but the sprites are clear and detailed.
__________________ Steam: The Scot's Ire
Irritable by nature
I made my avvy
You've been outright telling people that they're doing it wrong and enjoying the wrong things for not liking what you do. I don't feel any particular compunctions about being passive aggressive about that, especially not when it's easy to point out evolution in the technology in question. This is especially true when the specific post I was replying to was quite condescending in how it suggested that those who disagreed with you were ignorant and lacking in history and needed you to set them straight with a few choice words. Also, I'm sorry to disappoint you, that isn't Wasteland, it's a far older game, specifically Ultima 1, there's a seven year age gap there.
Graphics technology advanced quite a bit before 3D graphics too and I don't think you're likely to find anybody who says that, say, Pong or old Atari games look anything but ugly and dated today. Also, comparing SNES era sprites to early PSX and N64 era polygons is quite misleading. The former was far later in the development cycle of the technology they were using, while also being based on more than a decade of professional experience with how to utilize 2D graphics. A more fair comparison would be PS2 era 3D graphics and I have praised the appearance of at least three PS2 games with 3D graphics due to the technology not being too bad to get in the way of the design. It's simply that polygons are a newer technology than sprites and unsurprisingly didn't mature until later, not that one or the other is inherently better or more timeless than the other.
__________________
Last edited by Terraoblivion : 07-30-2012 at 04:02 PM.
Games have come a long LONG way in the last 30-40 years, and while some of what older games did differently and the play styles that were rejected somewhere along the way towards modern game design are interesting from a design perspective, I don't know if they're really worth going back to experience if you have a more casual interest. Most of these design choices died out because they were, frankly, not fun.
Having dabbled with Fallout 1 and 2 for maybe a couple hours each way back, I would be entirely comfortable ignoring them entirely. I didn't hate them but I never got why they attracted such a long term following, beyond the unusual setting and tone.
__________________
Proof-reading is totally unnecessary in the digital age now that we have spell cheque.
There are some games that have aged well. Quite frankly, I think RPGs like Fallout 2, Chrono Trigger, and Final Fantasy VI still hold up to this day. Things like Oblivion and Morrowind, however, have not.
__________________ Steam: The Scot's Ire
Irritable by nature
I made my avvy
First of all, if she rejects them on graphics, that's something different. So what if the controls are difficult? Either Koury has played it before and can explain the controls, or hasn't, and they can learn them together. Either way, it's a great game that at least deserves a shot.
It's not even elitism. I'm just arguing that graphics are a poor barrier to great games. The list shows that already since both Oblivion and Skyrim are on the list. If graphics were that much of an issue, Oblivion wouldn't make it because Skyrim is so much better looking. But they're both great games and the list shows that.
I wouldn't suggest X-Com or Dwarf Fortress either, not until after Final Fantasy Tactics.
Strawman. I didn't say that there's no point in playing games that aren't state-of-the-art graphics, just because a better edition of the game is out. I said that some games have graphics that, today, repel users. Oblivion I wouldn't count as one. Oblivion graphics may not be GOOD, and may be dated, but they are not so dated as to detract from the game.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maxios
That's just sad. As long as the game is good, I don't care how crappy the graphics are.
^: How was F2 sexist? I mean, I can see what you mean about the humor being stupid at parts, but I don't remember any sexism.
How is it sad? I kinda resent the implication that my not liking the graphics I don't like makes my taste inferior to your tastes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Triscuitable
There are some games that have aged well. Quite frankly, I think RPGs like Fallout 2, Chrono Trigger, and Final Fantasy VI still hold up to this day. Things like Oblivion and Morrowind, however, have not.
I don't think, on reflection, it's really possible to say that any game objectively holds up today while others don't. I personally think that Oblivion and Morrowind hold up today MUCH better than Fallout 2. (I haven't played the others to judge). I never played any of the games I mentioned when their graphics were state-of-the-art.
...
I don't think, on reflection, it's really possible to say that any game objectively holds up today while others don't. I personally think that Oblivion and Morrowind hold up today MUCH better than Fallout 2. (I haven't played the others to judge). I never played any of the games I mentioned when their graphics were state-of-the-art.
To personally chip in on Morrowind: I fairly recently tried to play that again. But even with plenty of mods it was still a brown, murky mess with bad light. Does not hold up very well today, i find. >_>
(Of course given the region of Morrowind being what it is, the brown murkieness might have been a design decision well done.)
Thought I'd weigh in on the graphics debate. As was said several pages of posts ago, Koury had me sample an earlier FF~forgetting the number. Spoiled from ME, I didn't think much of the seemingly dated visuals, and came to the following conclusion: in terms of being introduced to a series that spans several years, I'll start with more updated graphics, and if hooked, I will then go back to fill in my understanding. That is of course, if it makes sense to do so. Hope that helps.
Thought I'd weigh in on the graphics debate. As was said several pages of posts ago, Koury had me sample an earlier FF~forgetting the number. Spoiled from ME, I didn't think much of the seemingly dated visuals, and came to the following conclusion: in terms of being introduced to a series that spans several years, I'll start with more updated graphics, and if hooked, I will then go back to fill in my understanding. That is of course, if it makes sense to do so. Hope that helps.
That is a perfectly fine stance on older games.
Example: Some games are just awful looking by today's standards. I never played Final Fantasy 7 in its heyday. I bought it and played it in 2004 and hated every agonizing minute of Midgar. By the time I had the option to leave Midgar, I had lost all interest in the story, wasn't having any fun with the battles, and thought most of the characters were infantile and stupid. Compounding all this annoyance at the game were terrible visuals. So I decided to play a game I actually wanted to play, so I picked up Knights of the Old Republic instead.
However, I never played Fallout in its heyday either, but was able to pick it up immediately in 2006 and have a fun time with it.
So it's fine to pass on a game with bad visuals, but just know you may be missing out one something wonderful.
Oe of these things is not like the other. HINT: It's Fallout 2. I think it was a solid game for its time but it cannot possibly stand next to FF6 and Chrono Trigger, very possibly the two best RPGs of the 16 bit era. It's just unfair to compare a pretty good game to the pinnacles of 16 bit RPGdom.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Logic
That is a perfectly fine stance on older games.
Example: Some games are just awful looking by today's standards. I never played Final Fantasy 7 in its heyday. I bought it and played it in 2004 and hated every agonizing minute of Midgar. By the time I had the option to leave Midgar, I had lost all interest in the story, wasn't having any fun with the battles, and thought most of the characters were infantile and stupid. Compounding all this annoyance at the game were terrible visuals. So I decided to play a game I actually wanted to play, so I picked up Knights of the Old Republic instead.
However, I never played Fallout in its heyday either, but was able to pick it up immediately in 2006 and have a fun time with it.
So it's fine to pass on a game with bad visuals, but just know you may be missing out one something wonderful.
Spoiler
I may be a bit of an RPG heretic but I think FF7 was one of the more forgettable entries in the series. It never really did that much for me, and I definitely rank it in the lower half of FF games. I get that it was influential, but it wasn't that compelling, and the story wasn't nearly as good as the fan boys give it credit for. Personally, I didn't give a damn that Aeris (YES, THAT'S RIGHT, AERIS, NOT AERITH) died, because I didn't really care about her.
I'll await the giant ceremonial "burn me at the stake" pyre to be erected in my front yard any moment for disrespecting the "great" FF7, but honestly I think FF7 was pretty mediocre, technological improvements aside. 4, 5 ,6 and 9 were all better than 7 even if they didn't make the same graphical leaps forward
__________________
Proof-reading is totally unnecessary in the digital age now that we have spell cheque.
Yeah, I have to agree with Eakin that Fallout 2 isn't comparable to Chrono Trigger and FF VI, especially not in terms of holding up over the years. Chrono Trigger and FF VI not only look and sound vastly less dated, their stories are also more their own thing while Fallout 2 was mostly atmosphere and little events and New Vegas did the same kind of atmosphere and did it far better while also adding an actual plot. Really, if you're intent on recommending PC rpgs from that period why not go for Planescape: Torment? It has nice visual design, an interesting and unique setting and an actual plot.
For that matter, I also agree that FF VII wasn't that good. In fact, if I were to make a list of the most overrated games of all time Fallout 2 and FF VII would probably be at the top. It's not a terrible game, outside the graphics which really are terrible, but the story is incoherent, which also makes the characters kinda meh and the gameplay is the second most annoying the series has had since it moved away from the NES. FF VI is by far the best of the older games in the series with sprites that are highly expressive, nice directing of them, music that's probably the most classic Nobuo has done and the single most emotional scene in the entire series, anybody who has completed the game can probably guess which one I'm talking about. In general, though, I think Final Fantasy has trended upwards in its single player installments. VI was amazing and V, IX and X were perfectly decent, but mostly my love for the series is reserved for XII and XIII.
Also, for me personally Morrowind has aged quite well and I honestly personally prefer it over Skyrim. There was just something about the bizarre landscapes and cities of Vvardenfel that were magical and they truly are wholly unlike the generic, pseudo-European fantasy lands the series stuck to since then. It's just one of those rare fantasy settings that actually feels fantastic.
__________________
Last edited by Terraoblivion : 07-31-2012 at 05:31 AM.
...
I'll await the giant ceremonial "burn me at the stake" pyre to be erected in my front yard any moment for disrespecting the "great" FF7, but honestly I think FF7 was pretty mediocre, technological improvements aside. 4, 5 ,6 and 9 were all better than 7 even if they didn't make the same graphical leaps forward
Speaking of heresy... 8 was better than 7.
(There's something about it that speaks to german sensibilities, it seems, as pretty much every time i hear someone here talk about these games that statement comes up.)
Terraoblivion, we've been over recommending Planescape: Torment and ultimately decided against it, remember? Too heavy.
Oh yeah, recommending... what was this thread about again?
Eakin, any chance I can get you to spoiler the second to last paragraph in your most recent post? On the off chance we play that game?
Anyway, so she finished Portal and, as far as I could tell, enjoyed the final battle against GLaDOS. She also enjoyed Still Alive (it was her first time hearing it), and was very pleased with the little party at the end with her companion cube and cake. I get the feeling she'll go back and do the advanced maps at some point as well.
As for moving forward, we played the first hour of a few different games (yes, I know the problems inherent to this) and she settled on Final Fantasy 12 for the next game. I also found out my God of War disc is unreadable, which saddens me. I think she'll really like God of War.
We also did a campaign (well, half, we died and it was late) of L4D2. I'm thinking that was a good suggestion. Anyway, enough rambling.
tl:dr Finished Portal, there was much cake. FF12 underway.
I want to say, I really preferred FFIX to FFVII. Don't get me wrong, VII was fun, and VIII had an amazing magic system. IX just took those two and rubbed off all the rough bits and put the good parts together. Except for that stupid card game...
I'd have to admit, that Fallout 2 is a little sexist, but there are so many well done, or important female characters that it makes up for it.
The Elder of your Village? Female. The Bartender who asks you to find her boyfriend. The Gang leader who enlists your help fighting another gang. First Citizen Lynette. The nurse in Vault 8. The NCR Ranger. Marge LeBarge in Redding, not to mention Louise the bar owner. Then there's the two women at the Vault 15 squat. Not to mention Mrs. Wright and her daughter. Even Bishops wife and daughter are well written, if not precisely shining examples of woman hood. On the other hand, it is in crime central so...
For all of these, we counter balance with a couple of negatives. The Nicole Kidman parody, and umm...
For all of these, we counter balance with a couple of negatives. The Nicole Kidman parody, and umm...
The bisexual nymphomaniac you can end up being forced to marry, the inexplicably all-female prostitutes all over the place, the way they added content for female characters to perform sexual favors on men and the fact that most of the characters you mentioned are incredibly minor in terms of both IC influence and plot important? Seems like kind of a lot to me, really.
Also, for that matter, I'm not sure why I forgot the racism. It's less prevalent than the sexism but way more in your face. Just look at Sulik. Seriously, all he needs is to boil missionaries in a big, black cauldron to complete the incredibly offensive stereotype. Filling San Francisco with Chinese people going on about kung-fu wasn't exactly the most racially sensitive thing ever. Oh, and the ableism with the mentally handicapped cowherd in Klamath and the way your character talks at low intelligence. Really, it's probably faster to say that the game is simply offensive to everyone who isn't a straight, white man of average or better intelligence.
__________________
Last edited by Terraoblivion : 07-31-2012 at 06:49 PM.
Uh, The Elder gives your quest, therefore causing the events of the entire game. Lydia leads the largest city in California.
Sulik: Of course there's going to be tribals. After a catastrophic event, groups of people will band together. And after a few generations, assuming the religon of the founders of the group don't teach their religious beliefs, people will form their own religions. And the intelligence is bound to be lowered without any teachers or structured form of education.
The Prostitutes: Of course there's going to be Prostitutes. I understand what you mean about there not being any male ones, but if having Prostitutes in a game is sexist, then real life is sexist because prostitutes live in the real world too [/insanetrolllogic]
Content for Female Characters: Yeah, I see your point here.
The bisexual nymphomanic you marry: You do realize her entire existence is to punish players who try to get their character laid whenever possible, right?
The way you talk at low intelligence: So, since your characters talks like the Hulk, and that's offensive, by your logic all cavemen in the media are offensive because they talk like that too [/anotherbitofinsanetrolllogic]
Also, a few million people disagree with you there. Plenty of people of all sexual orientations, skin colors, and intellects play these games, and you're the only person I've ever seen get offended.
__________________
Artifical intelligence is no match for natural stupidity
Spoiler
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogerd
Strike me down and I'll clean the floor faster than you can imagine
@YakYak: Agreed, but I'm not quite sure what to classify that as yet. Looks really fun though.
@Terraoblivion: Umm... have you played the game? True, most of the prostitutes are female, there are male ones, but they're only in the brothel in New Reno.
Second, while you can be forced to marry the girl, you can also be forced to marry the son. And he's also an idiot.
I don't find Sulik offensive at all. Ancestor Worship is usually the most prevalent early form of religion around. I don't see you calling native american's stereotypes for respecting their ancestors, or being guided by them.
Did you never notice that there was actually an in story reason for all the chinese people in San Francisco? The Submarine they used to escape horrible death by nuclear weapon, happened to ground itself in San Francisco.
And frankly, the only people I've ever met that had a problem with Torvik or the low intelligence speech are people without handicaps. The people I've talked to with them think it's just plain hilarious. Honestly, I think it's more offensive you didn't bother to remember his name, or even look him up, because you considered him that much of a non-person.
If you really wanted to get offended over a stereotype, Algernon is a better example. He's a mentally handicapped genius, kept locked in a basement to be exploited by the gun shop owner, who can then charge for his upgrade services. Of course, for Algernon's services the shop owner protects him from others who might exploit him, keeps him fed, and leaves him alone to play with his junk the rest of the time.
---
Back on topic: I want to recommend Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter. Yes, it's a strange entry, particularly compared to CoD4, but it's a much more realistic and much more difficult game, but the story is more captivating in my opinion. And I cared about the characters in it, much more than I cared about the ones in COD4. Be warned, you will die. A LOT. But it's worth it.
I played the game two or three times, but it was years ago since I honestly felt really uncomfortable the last time.
Anyway, Sulik isn't offensive because he's a member of a tribal society. He's offensive because he's a racial stereotype of members of tribal societies. He speaks silly and his ancestor worship comes off as a mix of particularly unfunny joke and the idea of native people being magical and wise in the way it is handled and is the closest to a dumb brute you ever get to recruit. Not to mention, just look at him. He has a bone through his nose, that's one of the most prevalent racist images used in older art to denote people as savages.
Similarly, the Chinese people in San Francisco aren't offensive for being Chinese, though it is a cheesy joke, they're offensive because they're portrayed as a racial stereotype. Or two actually. The normal citizens pretty much have no characterization, but they did add a fighting arena where the two fighters kept throwing quotes from old kung-fu movies around. They even have a quest around kung-fu. The Shi on the other hand get the old "Asians are nerds" stereotype used, it's not a particularly aggressive use, but it is there, Not to mention that they call their freaking computer The Emperor just to make them fulfill more western stereotypes of Asian cultures, specifically that they all serve some kind of emperor loyally. Also, the idea that being part of the plot absolves something of being offensive in any way is ludicrous, by that logic Birth of a Nation isn't problematic because it's part of the plot that the KKK are the heroes. I'm sure you can see the problem with your logic here.
I will give you the few male prostitutes in New Reno. I had honestly forgotten about them and that does make things a bit better, though not a whole. For the kids you can be forced to marry there's a rather big difference. The girl is a dumb bimbo who'll jump everything that moves, which is a common sexist archetype, while the guy is just kind of a shy moron, which rather isn't, so I'm not giving you any points there. I hadn't forgotten about the guy, I just didn't consider him relevant because it was the execution and portrayal that mattered to me, not that you could be forced to marry her.
For Torvik there's a more simple reason. I had simply forgotten his name. I don't remember the name of every character from every game I've ever played for the simple reason that it would be a very long list of names to go around remembering for not much of a reason. Also, whether the people affected notice that something is offensive is rather immaterial. The biggest problem with offensive content is that it informs and helps shape the perception of those who see it, especially if they accept it as uncontroversial. Not just that, racist/sexist/homophobic/otherwise oppressive, bigoted ideas often penetrate and influence the perception of the group discriminated against themselves. You won't find women any more opposed to female circumcision in East Africa than the men and it was women who led the charge for other woman to cover themselves more during the Victorian era, for example. Just because a member of the affected group doesn't notice something, doesn't mean it isn't a problem.
Look, you have your opinion, and everyone else has theirs. To argue about a game that came out over ten years ago, that isn't even offensive compared to some of the crap that's come out in the past few years, is idiotic.
To name a few games that make Fallout 2 look like a tiny lego brick on the bottom of a box of "offensive" games:
GTA: San Andreas
Borderlands
Duke Nukem Forever
Saint's Row 3 Oh, and by the way, I'm a straight, half-hispanic who is partially descended from native americans, with a high IQ score, who believes in the equality of all, and nothing in this game offended me.
__________________
Artifical intelligence is no match for natural stupidity
Spoiler
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogerd
Strike me down and I'll clean the floor faster than you can imagine
Look, you have your opinion, and everyone else has theirs. To argue about a game that came out over ten years ago, that isn't even offensive compared to some of the crap that's come out in the past few years, is idiotic.
To name a few games that make Fallout 2 look like a tiny lego brick on the bottom of a box of "offensive" games:
Or we could maybe stop derailing the thread/calling people idiots and get back to making recommendations.
On that note...
I think an introduction to the Shooty McJumpenstein genre wouldn't hurt. It's good fun. Now, obviously, this stuff typically has plot levels on par with... what, Mega Man and Metroid? It's not exactly fantastic.
Thus, Iji. You want plot? This has it. This has a very well-told one, for that matter. Managed to really get to me emotionally at a couple points, which is fairly rare. The protagonist changes significantly based on how you play, and if you so choose, there are two paths to take through the games, plus a couple variations on the ending. Depending on your actions, you're also perceived differently by the characters in the game, and end up changing the plot in a rather organic fashion.
Also, this is a game that gives a rocket shotgun and pacifist path in the same game. Added bonuses include the fact that you can finish it in about ten hours, and it's entirely free. Again, download link here.
Fair warning, though, it doesn't look too pretty, as you can see, and you should definitely play it on easy. Not trying to be condescending, here; you're fairly new to games, and this is not a forgiving one. I found some quite a few parts brutal on Normal, so the lower difficulty will almost definitely prove to be more fun.
Look, you have your opinion, and everyone else has theirs. To argue about a game that came out over ten years ago, that isn't even offensive compared to some of the crap that's come out in the past few years, is idiotic.
Wut? It's not like offense is a finite resource that will run out and we won't have any left for DNF's stupidity just because FO2 is offensive. They can both be offensive.
Quote:
I wasn't calling anyone an idiot, I was just saying it's stupid to argue.
Way to stand by your words. Let me requote you and bold it.
Quote:
To argue about a game that came out over ten years ago, that isn't even offensive compared to some of the crap that's come out in the past few years, is idiotic.
I'd like to second (or third or whatever) Kingdom Hearts for a good set of games for a new player. There's plenty to do for a completion nut, and they're easy to learn. Should be a perfectly reasonable challenge for a newer player on normal. The story's a bit convoluted in the second, admittedly, but it should still be followable (Or I'm just too used to convoluted).
__________________
Asok: Shouldn't we actually be working?
And then Asok was thrown out of the car.
Last edited by RPGuru1331 : 08-01-2012 at 12:21 PM.
RSS Feeds: 
Re: Getting Into Gaming
