E3 2016: Apparently we wished hard enough

[Zigwat]

So this E3 turned out far better than I could have imagined. With the extreme disappointment of the last few E3's I think it has earned a skeptical look, but it delivered!

What I'm excited about:

God of War 4: Screw the title, I'm calling it God of War 4, I don't know why companies have such a hard-on for retitling a different game the same title, but whatever. It looks really good, and that's surprising because the Gameplay looks vastly different. I'm really looking forward to meeting Kratos after all the crap from GOW3, and see what his son is like. The graphics look amazing, and all in all, I'm liking the feel of the gameplay trailer.

Spider-man: You better believe I'm looking forward to this game. If you are privy to my Spider-man or Batman thread, you know that Spider-man has been lacking in the gaming community, especially compared to the caped crusader, and this game looks like it may turn it around for the webhead. There's not a lot out on the game play, but the graphics look smooth as butter and the fact that it's not a movie tie-in may work wonders in its favor. Super excited about this one.

Resident Evil 7: Alright, so RE has been failing on multiple fronts over the past five or so years, and it seriously needs a win outside of CGI movies. This looks very promising. Experiencing RE from a Virtual Reality perspective is intriguing to say the very least, and I am excited to at least try this one out. It looks amazing, but at the same time, I would have to wait and see for myself.

Death Stranding: After Silent Hills went under, and even its spiritual successor, Allison Road was cancelled, it seemed like all hope was truly lost. While the trailer looks weird as hell, the fact that Hideo Kojima and Norman Reedus are back in the arena together is at least a glimmer of hope. It's in the early stages of production, so I wouldn't expect it any earlier than 2018, but, hey, a guy can hope.


So there's stuff I left out, I'm sure, but that's the beauty of a thread, there's going to be more to talk about. So, by all means, tell me, what are you excited about?

[Aotrs Commander]

Absolutely nothing, it would appear; since with the possible exception of Pokemon, the AAA games industry ceased to produce anything I was remotely interested in long ago.

Pokemon aside, has there been anything annouced on PC that ISN'T some sort of shooter/MMORPG/MOBA or 3D gimmick etc etc? Any RTS, strats, flight sims, city-builders, point-and-click adventure games? (I suppose there may be something on the new Mass Effect, but after ME 3, I am not likely to even glance at thart until well after it's been released.) I mean, I highly doubt it, but you never know.

[tonberrian]

Absolutely nothing, it would appear; since with the possible exception of Pokemon, the AAA games industry ceased to produce anything I was remotely interested in long ago.

Pokemon aside, has there been anything annouced on PC that ISN'T some sort of shooter/MMORPG/MOBA or 3D gimmick etc etc? Any RTS, strats, flight sims, city-builders, point-and-click adventure games? (I suppose there may be something on the new Mass Effect, but after ME 3, I am not likely to even glance at thart until well after it's been released.) I mean, I highly doubt it, but you never know.

I'm looking forward to Tyranny, which looks to be an isometric RPG, but that A.) isn't AAA and B.)wasn't announced at E3.

[danzibr]

For me, NieR, RE7, and FFXV.

EDIT: Helps I'm a VR fan.

[Legoshrimp]

Absolutely nothing, it would appear; since with the possible exception of Pokemon, the AAA games industry ceased to produce anything I was remotely interested in long ago.

Pokemon aside, has there been anything annouced on PC that ISN'T some sort of shooter/MMORPG/MOBA or 3D gimmick etc etc? Any RTS, strats, flight sims, city-builders, point-and-click adventure games? (I suppose there may be something on the new Mass Effect, but after ME 3, I am not likely to even glance at thart until well after it's been released.) I mean, I highly doubt it, but you never know.

Halo wars 2 comes to mind. Although I think it might be a win10 exclusive thing.
There was a new tekken game for fighters though.

Civ 6.
Gwent.
A new south park game.

I assume a lot of other ones on the list also fit, but I don't remember what they are, or they already have been out(don't starve together).
http://www.ign.com/wikis/e3/Games_at_E3_2016

[Aotrs Commander]

I'm looking forward to Tyranny, which looks to be an isometric RPG, but that A.) isn't AAA and B.)wasn't announced at E3.

I wasn't counting stuff like that (I figured Obsidian wouldn't be there particularly).

And I was both wrong (sort of), there was an E3 trailer (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNXV5SWi2Z8) for Tyranny.

So there we go, we CAN now say there's something shown at E3 we can look forward to. (If not something annouced at E3, but there you go.)

(I mean, a game which lets me play LE and be, like, in an official capacity? 'Bout time, is all I can say.)

[Triaxx]

New Legend of Zelda? Yay? I'm simple, sue me.

[Admiral Squish]

I'm excited for a couple things, but only tangentially, because I have exactly none of the equipment required to play any of the games.

Norse God of War looked awesome. You see a lot of greek and roman mythology stuff, but not so much norse. Or, well, anything else.
Legend of Zelda, of course, that looked great, a more sort of down-to-earth kinda thing. I am curious about the story. Some sort of post-apocalyptic-war thing?

[Hiro Protagonest]

New Legend of Zelda? Yay? I'm simple, sue me.

Legend of Zelda? I think you mean Dark Cry Witcher IV: Skyrim.

[Zevox]

God of War 4: Screw the title, I'm calling it God of War 4, I don't know why companies have such a hard-on for retitling a different game the same title, but whatever. It looks really good, and that's surprising because the Gameplay looks vastly different. I'm really looking forward to meeting Kratos after all the crap from GOW3, and see what his son is like. The graphics look amazing, and all in all, I'm liking the feel of the gameplay trailer.
I was worried at first seeing the gameplay trailer - it left me with the impression that they were turning it into an open-world game, and adding unnecessary RPG-ish elements. But they've since announced that while the game will be more open than in the past, it will not be open-world, which does ease those fears for me. The combat still looks good, and I like it getting a Norse mythology setting, so I'm certainly interested. Still a bit worried about the weird non-combat stat boosts that showed up occasionally in there, though.

I do wish they'd dumped Kratos for a new main character - how the hell they plan to explain how he or the world are still around after God of War 3 ended with his god-murder basically causing the apocalypse and him committing suicide I have no idea. Nor, honestly, do I care: I don't like Kratos anyway, which is part of why I was hoping for a main character change to go with the setting change. But alas, looks like we're stuck with him.

I'm also... well, almost interested and at least going to keep an eye on Injustice 2. On the one hand, NetherRealm Studios games have thus far always disappointed me, between an overall more clunky feel to the mechanics than in other fighting games, bad netcode, and some oddities of the way they design certain things that just rub me the wrong way. On the other hand, by all accounts they've finally figured out some good netcode with MKX's last update, Injustice at least doesn't have the block button that MK does, and they've already announced one character I'm pretty interested in seeing added to the roster, Atrocitus. On the third hand, the whole RPG-esque armor system sounds like an awful idea for a fighting game, and if they don't include an online mode where that's turned off by default, there may not be much for me with it in the long run. So, we'll see.

Zelda... honestly, I haven't even looked at the Zelda coverage. I basically know where I stand on it at this point: pessimistic because open-world, but I'm still going to try it because Zelda. It doesn't really feel like any additional details are likely to change that.

Also disappointed to hear that the next Arkham game is going to be a VR game. I enjoy that series but have no interest whatsoever in VR, so that basically means a longer wait before I see more of the series. Oh well.


...huh, that's all a lot more pessimistic than I thought I'd come across when I started this. Oh well. I am genuinely happy that we're getting God of War 4 and it's moving over to Norse Mythology, at least. Been waiting for that series to come back and stop making prequels nobody wanted for a while now.

[Rakaydos]

Absolutely nothing, it would appear; since with the possible exception of Pokemon, the AAA games industry ceased to produce anything I was remotely interested in long ago.

Pokemon aside, has there been anything annouced on PC that ISN'T some sort of shooter/MMORPG/MOBA or 3D gimmick etc etc? Any RTS, strats, flight sims, city-builders, point-and-click adventure games? (I suppose there may be something on the new Mass Effect, but after ME 3, I am not likely to even glance at thart until well after it's been released.) I mean, I highly doubt it, but you never know.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=romB8e5nMp8

I'm also hyped for Zelda, but I will never be playing it withut my hunting wolf amibo companion. will be interesting if they manage to keep the encounter density we saw on the mesa over the entire skyrim+ sized map.

[Zigwat]

The new Zelda does sound really awesome. I would love to see how they pull off having a full-size world map. Did they say whether it was going to be an MMORPG or just a Free-roaming game?

[Yuki Akuma]

The new Zelda does sound really awesome. I would love to see how they pull off having a full-size world map. Did they say whether it was going to be an MMORPG or just a Free-roaming game?

Wh... why would you think a Zelda game would be an MMORPG?

[Zigwat]

They've done it for other games, and Zelda would make an amazing MMORPG. You can't tell me the thought of creating your own Hylian character wouldn't be enticing to say the least.

[Rakaydos]

They've done it for other games, and Zelda would make an amazing MMORPG. You can't tell me the thought of creating your own Hylian character wouldn't be enticing to say the least.

No.

Just doesnt fit with the Chosen Triad motif that is core to the seres. If you're not the Chosen of courage, wisdom, or power, you're just cannonfodder or bosses/sages for one side or another.

There's games like Boss Monster that turn concepts like this on their head, but breaking it for Zelda makes it no longer a zelda game. The best result you could hope for is something like Hyrule Warriors or Exalted.

[Yuki Akuma]

They've done it for other games, and Zelda would make an amazing MMORPG. You can't tell me the thought of creating your own Hylian character wouldn't be enticing to say the least.

I can, in fact, tell you that wouldn't be enticing. That idea would be awful.

I also can't imagine how you'd possibly get the impression Nintendo were doing that with this game. Have you watched any of the E3 footage?

[danzibr]

Count me among those who think a Zelda MMORPG sounds dreadful.

[Hunter Noventa]

Count me among those who think a Zelda MMORPG sounds dreadful.

The only Zelda I've played since Link's Awakening is Link between Worlds and I think that sounds terrible too. The new Zelda certainly looks a lot more interesting than the other recent (post GB for me) entries, I might actually pick it up.

I was beyond thrilled with the Pokemon news, I mean, i was getting the game already, but knowing that we can change the female trainer out of that terrible hat made me so happy.

I didn't pay attention to too much else, 99% of the coverage is for FPS, MOBA, VR or Sportsball games. I did watch the FFXIV livestream and that got me excited, but I'm always excited for more FFXIV.

I just can't seem to get into any of the FFXV hype personally.

[Triaxx]

If it turns out like the Witcher, I can only hope it's not a complete franchise killer.

[Togath]

If it turns out like the Witcher, I can only hope it's not a complete franchise killer.

I really don't get why people are so suspicious of an open world Zelda game. Open world doesn't mean no-plot/bad plot or boring dungeons.
And I personally like the idea of a Zelda game with few loading screens between areas(especially since it's been a decade since it seems like anyone was trying that, given the only game like that that comes to mind is one from my childhood (http://www.gamestop.com/ps2/games/neopets-the-darkest-faerie/39226)).

[Hiro Protagonest]

I really don't get why people are so suspicious of an open world Zelda game. Open world doesn't mean no-plot/bad plot or boring dungeons.

Yeah but what's the track record on that?

[Togath]

Why does everyone assume open world = Skyrim/GTA?:smallconfused:
If people do count Skyrim as open world, shouldn't we be counting stuff like Ocarina of Time or Dragon Quest 8/9 too?(a JRPG and a fellow Zelda game)
Both seem like they do a pretty good job at being engaging despite the open world(I'd personally argue that the open world improves all three).
Edit: I can't think of ANY 3d zelda game that isn't "open world". And if you can count a 2d game as Open World, then there's pretty much the entire main series to choose from.

[Yuki Akuma]

The only truly "open world" Zelda games are the first two and A Link Between Worlds. The others have had linear progression, usually with an overworld that has parts opened up as you progress through the plot.

You could sequence break to an extent in A Link to the Past, Link's Awakening and Ocarina of Time, but they were still intended to have linear plotlines. The latter Zeldas were more strict, generally - Wind Waker was probably the closest the series got to a truly open world since the first two games before A Link Between Worlds came along, and even then Wind Waker's plot is pretty damn linear until right near the end. Twilight Princess and Skyward Sword don't even let you visit most of the overworld until you've progressed the plot sufficiently (and Wind Waker keeps you on very strict rails until you beat the first two-and-a-half dungeons and get the three Plot Coupons).

Breath of the Wild, meanwhile, is apparently designed to let you tackle anything in any order, or even ignore the plot entirely and just go kill Ganon in your skivvies with a tree branch.

[Triaxx]

I think an open world Zelda will be amazing. I can't see where people have an issue with Skyrim's open world. People easily spoiled for choice, or who need to be guided by the hand I suppose. Heck, I remember playing the Original Sacred, and spending hours hunting for secrets buried in it's huge open world. I spent a month of real play time before I ever touched the main quest.

I just cannot stand Witcher. I've watched videos of it, and played a bit, but I just can't find anything about it I like. I keep seeing it held up as being so much better than say, Skyrim, or Mount and Blade. I just don't see it.

[gooddragon1]

I already have my ideal game in Planetside 2. The only thing they could do for me is performance improvements I think.

[Knaight]

Breath of the Wild, meanwhile, is apparently designed to let you tackle anything in any order, or even ignore the plot entirely and just go kill Ganon in your skivvies with a tree branch.
Assuming there are no item gates or similar, sure. For all that they've emphasized openness, this seems unlikely.

[Zevox]

I really don't get why people are so suspicious of an open world Zelda game. Open world doesn't mean no-plot/bad plot or boring dungeons.
Zelda's stories have never been its strong suite anyway, so that's not my concern. Open world does, on the other hand, mean a whole lot more space the developers need to fill with stuff, which seems in practice to translate into much shallower, less interesting stuff being used to fill it. And I don't just mean weak side-quests, though that's common: another example would be irritating busywork such as all the different crafting ingredients Bioware strewed around Dragon Age Inquisition that you had to stop to pick up every ten feet or so in order to keep a good stock of if you wanted to use that system at all (and since potions and the like are extremely helpful, it was kind of hard to just ignore them).

And quite frankly, I personally dislike having to traverse all that unnecessary space in general on top of that concern. Even with quick travel systems to help, it ends up feeling like a lot of wasted time. I much prefer games just creating as much space as is necessary for their main plot and whatever side quests the developers deem worth putting in, not deliberately super-sizing the world as if that was desirable for its own sake. It's very much so not, in my mind.


If people do count Skyrim as open world, shouldn't we be counting stuff like Ocarina of Time or Dragon Quest 8/9 too?(a JRPG and a fellow Zelda game)
No, because their worlds aren't deliberately oversized. Most areas serve a purpose to the main plot, and the few that don't have significance to side-quests, none of which feel like filler created to justify the existence of those areas.


Breath of the Wild, meanwhile, is apparently designed to let you tackle anything in any order, or even ignore the plot entirely and just go kill Ganon in your skivvies with a tree branch.
And I can honestly say that I see no appeal to that whatsoever. Playing through the plot is the main thing I want to do in games that have one - why I would want to ignore it, or even go off the rails with it?

[Hiro Protagonest]

I think an open world Zelda will be amazing. I can't see where people have an issue with Skyrim's open world. People easily spoiled for choice, or who need to be guided by the hand I suppose. Heck, I remember playing the Original Sacred, and spending hours hunting for secrets buried in it's huge open world. I spent a month of real play time before I ever touched the main quest.
I don't do that. If a game starts demanding my time, I'll stop playing. I will never complete many good games because I've already developed a full opinion on them. Skyrim isn't even on my radar of things I'd like to play.

I just cannot stand Witcher. I've watched videos of it, and played a bit, but I just can't find anything about it I like. I keep seeing it held up as being so much better than say, Skyrim, or Mount and Blade. I just don't see it.

I stopped playing it because of what I said above, but I found it much more engaging than the gameplay of an Elder Scrolls game or Mount & Blade. I hate any kind of combat that feels like a turn-based RPG as a real-time system, that's a big reason I won't get Xenoblade Chronicles.


I'm excited as hell for Breath of the Wild and combined with Smash 4 being better on Wii U, it might just convince me to get a Wii U. But there is no way I'm going to buy an open-world game without listening to multiple opinions on it first. It will make or break it.

[Yuki Akuma]

And I can honestly say that I see no appeal to that whatsoever. Playing through the plot is the main thing I want to do in games that have one - why I would want to ignore it, or even go off the rails with it?

And there's nothing stopping you from following the plot. Just because you can completely go off the rails doesn't mean you have to!

[Triaxx]

I don't think you're quite understanding it. I wanted to be there, ignoring the plot, searching for secrets. Found the shout out to Friday the Thirteenth? Yup. Found the Lightsaber? Yup. Secret histories of an entire race? Check. Pac-man cave? Wakka wakka.

The best parts of open world games are giving the plot the finger and exploring every inch of the bugger looking for secrets. But I could have dove straight in. I did a play through where I did just the main quest and sprinted through it in twelve hours. It was tons of fun. It even has teleporters for those times when you have to backtrack. You just jump into one of the teleporters, give it a destination, and poof, there you are to continue the adventure. Yes, there's some backtracking TO the teleporters, but it's infinitely less than trekking across the map.

Seems like a completely daft thing to dislike in a game, but I can at least respect the sentiment. I prefer that to the random attacking from older generations of games, without pattern discerned other than by dying for a week while you watched their patterns of attack.

Witcher... two types of attack! Fast but weak, slow but strong! Change between them. Here's a mix of enemies! DIE!! 'play different game' Glad I borrowed it on a console instead of buying it on the PC.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Witcher... two types of attack! Fast but weak, slow but strong! Change between them. Here's a mix of enemies! DIE!!

And you learn exactly how fast those attacks are, what they do to enemies, what enemy attacks do to you, etc.

Meanwhile, Xenoblade Chronicles. Click on talents in the proper order, get a daze talent off, chain attack, topple, see big numbers appear above the enemy head. There's nothing visceral about that. I could be playing a turn-based game where the game can punish me for not adapting but I won't get as frustrated because I have time to think about it. Or I could be playing Dark Souls or The Witcher, where every battle is tense because the goal is "don't get hit."

Also, I love the main plot of Xenoblade Chronicles to bits and that could sell the entire game on its own. I want the excellently-written, well-acted scenes of the main story, and I don't want my pacing ruined by yet another NPC love story or family dispute. While watching a Let's Play of it, I constantly think of how Xenoblade Chronicles would work as a TV show, and so every time it's like "hey there's a place here that's not relevant at all but we'll explore it" it shatters my immersion.

[Aotrs Commander]

And you learn exactly how fast those attacks are, what they do to enemies, what enemy attacks do to you, etc.

Or (in the first one anyway) just invest in and spam the area-effect fire rune and then laugh a lot.

[cobaltstarfire]

I thought Ever Oasis (3DS) looked really interesting.

I avoided pokemon cause I feel it's way more fun to play that when I don't really know the monsters. But it is nice to hear non-spoilery details, like how you can still customize your character (fingers crossed that I'm not gender locked into clothing choice, cause being stuck with mostly girly clothing in XY really sucked).

The new Zelda looks pretty fun, I am mildly concerned that I might get lost, but it looks like there are things put in place to make it easy to find story objectives if that's what one wants to focus on.

The beat game on the 3DS coming to the US also looked fun.

I'm interested in the Last Guardian...but I'm a little concerned about how the boy is rendered (very very poorly).

[Hiro Protagonest]

(fingers crossed that I'm not gender locked into clothing choice, cause being stuck with mostly girly clothing in XY really sucked).

...You really think Nintendo is going to let guys wear skirts? Of course clothing is going to be gender-locked.

[Yuki Akuma]

...You really think Nintendo is going to let guys wear skirts? Of course clothing is going to be gender-locked.

Triforce Heroes says hi.

http://www.toonzone.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/zeldadress.jpg

Yes, that's Link. Wearing Zelda's dress.

[Rodin]

I'm interested in the Last Guardian...but I'm a little concerned about how the boy is rendered (very very poorly).

Wait, that game's still in development!? I thought it died a long time ago.

*Googles*

The game was announced in 2007. For reference, games released that year include Burning Crusade, Supreme Commander, God of War II, the Shivering Isles expansion for Oblivion...

Hell, I was still in college when that game was announced. The game still being in development sends shivers down my soul.


Triforce Heroes says hi.

http://www.toonzone.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/zeldadress.jpg

Yes, that's Link. Wearing Zelda's dress.

Some days, you just feel pretty. So very, very pretty.

[cobaltstarfire]

Wait, that game's still in development!? I thought it died a long time ago.

*Googles*

The game was announced in 2007.
.

It's been slatted for release since last year, the date was actually moved forward too. Was going to be this December, but now its November.

Wasn't it also originally going to be on the ps3?

[Zigwat]

It was something crazy like that, but it has been OFFICIALLY slotted in a release date now. While I doubt that it's going to be delayed any further, there's always that ugly chance.

[gooddragon1]

And you learn exactly how fast those attacks are, what they do to enemies, what enemy attacks do to you, etc.

Meanwhile, Xenoblade Chronicles. Click on talents in the proper order, get a daze talent off, chain attack, topple, see big numbers appear above the enemy head. There's nothing visceral about that. I could be playing a turn-based game where the game can punish me for not adapting but I won't get as frustrated because I have time to think about it. Or I could be playing Dark Souls or The Witcher, where every battle is tense because the goal is "don't get hit."

Also, I love the main plot of Xenoblade Chronicles to bits and that could sell the entire game on its own. I want the excellently-written, well-acted scenes of the main story, and I don't want my pacing ruined by yet another NPC love story or family dispute. While watching a Let's Play of it, I constantly think of how Xenoblade Chronicles would work as a TV show, and so every time it's like "hey there's a place here that's not relevant at all but we'll explore it" it shatters my immersion.

It seems like you might enjoy a game called super hot (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKT6Ngsv6es). It's a shooter game that's also strategic in how you fight.

[BlueHerring]

Witcher... two types of attack! Fast but weak, slow but strong! Change between them. Here's a mix of enemies! DIE!! 'play different game' Glad I borrowed it on a console instead of buying it on the PC.If you only bothered with fast or slow attacks, you're only using half of the arsenal available to you. There's potions, oils, signs, and counters/evade. It's not Dark Souls in terms of sheer lethality (unless you want to punch the final boss to death), but there is a significantly greater depth of complexity to it than, say, Assassin's Creed.

As for its comparison to Skyrim and Mount & Blade, the first is a poorly balanced mess. I'll give you that M&B is fun. But Witcher (especially 3) excels in its worldbuilding. You've got vibrantly different places. Each of the areas in the game are completely different from each other.

Also, Witcher has Gwent. As far as minigames go, it's pretty damn good.

As far as E3 goes, I'm mostly excited for Pokemon. I usually skip E3, though. I've boarded the hypetrain too many times only to see it fall short, so I just wait for things to be closer to release before I give them a closer look. Pokemon is kind of a known quantity, so it generally gets a pass on that front.

[Rakaydos]

The thing I'm really looking for was NOT shown this year.

Zelda will be dual launching on WiiU and NX next year, like Twilight Princess was- ergo, the NX will be releasing sometime next year.
Retro Studios has been dark about their current project... for 2 years now. Retro studios is known for making the Metroid Prime trilogy.
it took 2 years to go from Metroid Prime to Metroid Prime 2, and 3 more years for Metroid Prime 3 (with Hunters thrown in the gap for good measure). By the time the NX releases, (assuming fall) Retro will have been working on their project for almost 4 years. For comparison, LoZ: BotW was in development since Jan 2013, or 3 1/2 years- it'll launch about 4 years in.

As GladOS would say, these points of data make a BEAUTIFUL line.

[Triaxx]

If you only bothered with fast or slow attacks, you're only using half of the arsenal available to you. There's potions, oils, signs, and counters/evade. It's not Dark Souls in terms of sheer lethality (unless you want to punch the final boss to death), but there is a significantly greater depth of complexity to it than, say, Assassin's Creed.

As for its comparison to Skyrim and Mount & Blade, the first is a poorly balanced mess. I'll give you that M&B is fun. But Witcher (especially 3) excels in its worldbuilding. You've got vibrantly different places. Each of the areas in the game are completely different from each other.

Also, Witcher has Gwent. As far as minigames go, it's pretty damn good.

As far as E3 goes, I'm mostly excited for Pokemon. I usually skip E3, though. I've boarded the hypetrain too many times only to see it fall short, so I just wait for things to be closer to release before I give them a closer look. Pokemon is kind of a known quantity, so it generally gets a pass on that front.


I suppose I didn't get far enough in to experience any of the goodies, but it didn't hold my attention long enough to reach them.

I'm not going to get into the Skyrim argument again. Balance is a vanilla argument and I don't vanilla. Mount and Blade is more about you doing the world building. Witcher might be the best world building game out there, but it's too dark and depressing for me to be interested in. I felt the same about Dark Souls.

The only two card games I've enjoyed in normal video games are Triple Triad(Final Fantasy 8), and Archmage (Might and Magic 8).

The last Hypetrain to disappoint me was Fallout 4, and after a while I came to enjoy that, if not adore it the way I did New Vegas. But I always like to know about the new things coming.

[BeerMug Paladin]

They've done it for other games, and Zelda would make an amazing MMORPG. You can't tell me the thought of creating your own Hylian character wouldn't be enticing to say the least.

I am here to tell you that the idea wouldn't be enticing to me.

I'm one of those elusive single-player-only gamers.

[Triaxx]

Single player gamers unite!

Individually.

[gooddragon1]

Single player gamers unite!

Individually.

There's the added benefit of almost never having to worry about lag.

[Yuki Akuma]

There's the added benefit of almost never having to worry about lag.

Oh, that'll change. Eventually you'll be streaming games over your Internet connection instead of downloading them all at once and running from your hard drive. Or owning physical media.

[Triaxx]

If that happens, I will simply cease purchasing new games. Problem solved. I already have an enormous backlog anyway.

[Knaight]

I am here to tell you that the idea wouldn't be enticing to me.

I'm one of those elusive single-player-only gamers.

It wouldn't for me either. I'll play multiplayer, but remote multiplayer with strangers is right out, and it's the wrong sort of game for local multiplayer anyways.

[Hiro Protagonest]

I suppose I didn't get far enough in to experience any of the goodies, but it didn't hold my attention long enough to reach them.
...You didn't get far enough in to use your magic? And yeah, magic, traps, and bombs add a lot to it.

I don't see how Skyrim's combat is engaging while Witcher's isn't.
Witcher might be the best world building game out there, but it's too dark and depressing for me to be interested in. I felt the same about Dark Souls.

I will never watch Game of Thrones, but I have more tolerance for darkness in a video game. In The Witcher, it's probably because Geralt is guaranteed to stay alive and is partially a voice for me. In Dark Souls, it's because it's often irrelevant and there's some really silly-looking stuff.

[Triaxx]

Skyrim combat lends itself naturally to those differing play styles. I'm currently playing with light armor and a shield, so dodging out of reach of enemy attacks is essential. I'm also playing without ranged weapons, so archers and spellcasters have to be charged. In Witcher it seems more a matter of what the enemy was vulnerable to than how I wanted to fight them.

I feel the same, but Witcher and Dark Souls both leave me thinking: 'Why am I bothering?' Same issue with Dragon Age. It just feels like a completely pointless slog through hordes of enemies who have no reason to exist other than to be slaughtered. I understand perfectly that the same can and indeed should be said of Skyrim. I'll say it myself. But when I fight Bandits in Skyrim, I hear them explain they expect me to have a bunch of money. (They're right. My most powerful weapon is probably my coin purse.) They at least have a reason. In Witcher or Dark Souls, it all seems to boil down to you guys being on opposing sides. And that's it.

In Dragon Age, there's no... Success point. Yes, you might kill the Archdemon, but between the Sacrifice you or a team mate makes, and the fact that it only slows the tide of Darkspawn. They don't stop, just slow down. Another horde will be along momentarily. At least if you defeat Alduin, you're delaying the inevitable. You've bought some time, instead of just slowing the destruction.

[warty goblin]

I wasn't exactly enamored of the combat in Oblivion, and thought Skyrim was basically the same damn system, but fortified with extra annoyances, like really badly animated unskippable and viewpoint-breaking finishing moves, and the loss of a dedicated spellcasting key. Since the only spell I ever wanted to cast was heal, this forced further contact with the pustule of an inventory system. Oh, and crafting, because nothing strip-mines those last bits of genuine pleasure out of a game like a goddamn crafting system.

I'm not seeing a huge amount this year that really turns my screws. The new Sniper: Ghost Warrior maybe. Battlefield 1 is deeply suspect to me; the singleplayer could easily achieve extreme levels of distastefullness, and if everybody's running around with super-rare semi auto rifles, it seems like it's kinda not really the Great War so much anymore. I should be excited about Dawn of War III, but I've been shuffling dudes around maps for ever, and it's just kinda lost its thrill at this point. It's not that I expect it to be bad, I expect it'll be pretty good, and I really won't care.

But E3 has never been when I find out much about the games I actually really like, since those tend to be smaller sorts of things from relatively minor but professional and traditional developers. Not indies, but not super-huge either.

[Triaxx]

We've had the argument before, and I will probably never agree with you on most points, but at least Fallout New Vegas let us turn them off.

You're right though the best stuff comes out of places like Comic-con or PAX, because There's room for smaller devs to get in without having to fight the AAA's for a spot. And as much as I don't like Blizzard, at least it means they aren't fighting for coverage with anyone else.

[warty goblin]

We've had the argument before, and I will probably never agree with you on most points, but at least Fallout New Vegas let us turn them off.
I don't object to finishing moves in general. The ones in nu-DOOM for instance are just fine, even fun, but they're player activated, fast as hell - and the proper Rune choices make them nearly instantaneous - serve a gameplay purpose, and the animations all look good, so long as you're fine with really extreme gore. The slo-mo kills in Dark Messiah are similarly excellent, and you never even lose control when executing them; if you're good you can even kill two enemies at once. The finishing moves in Skyrim had a strong tendency towards suddenly yanking me out of first person to watch my character stab an enemy who immediately starts vibrating violently, all from a camera lodged halfway through a wall. They aren't a gameplay element, because I don't control them, so they're only as interesting as they look cool, and they look like crap.


The finishers in the various Witcher games have bothered me less, particularly those in Witcher 1. Wasn't enamored of the ones in Witcher 2 as much, but they at least involved using game tools to trigger, and made stunning guys a useful strategy.

[Zigwat]

I don't object to finishing moves in general. The ones in nu-DOOM for instance are just fine, even fun, but they're player activated, fast as hell - and the proper Rune choices make them nearly instantaneous - serve a gameplay purpose, and the animations all look good, so long as you're fine with really extreme gore. The slo-mo kills in Dark Messiah are similarly excellent, and you never even lose control when executing them; if you're good you can even kill two enemies at once. The finishing moves in Skyrim had a strong tendency towards suddenly yanking me out of first person to watch my character stab an enemy who immediately starts vibrating violently, all from a camera lodged halfway through a wall. They aren't a gameplay element, because I don't control them, so they're only as interesting as they look cool, and they look like crap.


The finishers in the various Witcher games have bothered me less, particularly those in Witcher 1. Wasn't enamored of the ones in Witcher 2 as much, but they at least involved using game tools to trigger, and made stunning guys a useful strategy.

Exactly, and you can turn them off in DOOM as well.

[Triaxx]

Meh, I still find them awesome. Of course I'm still firmly amused by using F3's Railway rifle to nail a head to a wall. Perhaps my sense of humor is slightly juvenile.

Of course, I also prefer my finishers to be the kind of instant kill thing that if I get it right, it kills them no matter how much health they have. While Skyrim's are mostly just big hits when the attack would kill them anyway. Except the decapitation ones.

[Dienekes]

I'm cautiously excited for For Honor and Zelda. That's about it.

[Zevox]

Oh, that'll change. Eventually you'll be streaming games over your Internet connection instead of downloading them all at once and running from your hard drive. Or owning physical media.
I sure as heck hope not - that sounds incredibly stupid. Why introduce more problems doing that when just having them fully installed on your own system, or having physical copies of the games, works better?

[Dienekes]

Witcher... two types of attack! Fast but weak, slow but strong! Change between them. Here's a mix of enemies! DIE!! 'play different game' Glad I borrowed it on a console instead of buying it on the PC.

Interestingly, I only liked the combat of Witcher 2 because I got it on PC and modded it. Yeah, the basic game type of attacks are kind of weird in that there are only the two buttons for attacks, but each button actually has multiple attack types that are all put onto those two buttons, including lunges, and side sweeps, and all that jazz. I think all told there was something like 20 specific attack types that the game pretty much picked for you when you hit the attack buttons based off of enemy positioning. The mod put all of it into your hands if you could get the mouse controls to work and it was much more interesting.

[Knaight]

I'm cautiously excited for For Honor and Zelda. That's about it.

The Zelda game looks interesting, and I'm willing to forgive it a lot of flaws based on what I've seen of the combat system. I've always enjoyed the 3D Zelda combat, and this one has spears, which are used as a primarily stabbing weapon, where they are allowed to actually be used for reach while simultaneously maintaining some semblance of speed. I'm a spear guy, and between them being completely omitted from games routinely (e.g. Skyrim), the designers apparently forgetting they are reach weapons and having every attack be from a very central grip (Dark Souls), and them being sluggish implements a tiny fraction of the speed of a sword even when used in two hands (Diablo, Dark Souls again), there's not a lot of options.

[Dienekes]

The Zelda game looks interesting, and I'm willing to forgive it a lot of flaws based on what I've seen of the combat system. I've always enjoyed the 3D Zelda combat, and this one has spears, which are used as a primarily stabbing weapon, where they are allowed to actually be used for reach while simultaneously maintaining some semblance of speed. I'm a spear guy, and between them being completely omitted from games routinely (e.g. Skyrim), the designers apparently forgetting they are reach weapons and having every attack be from a very central grip (Dark Souls), and them being sluggish implements a tiny fraction of the speed of a sword even when used in two hands (Diablo, Dark Souls again), there's not a lot of options.

Yes, I love spears. It's insane to me that quite possibly the single most used primary weapon in history (until firearms) is relegated to an oddity in most games. The worst, for me was Dragon Age 2 which even had the tag line "Fight like a Spartan" and there was not a single spear in the entire game.

I will say a word in Dark Souls defense though. While the basic spear is next to useless (at least in DS1 and 2) other options do become available later that do actually feel like they have some reach to them. As to speed, yeah they're still a bit on the slow side but I think a lot of weapons in those games have just a bit of delay when compared to real speed and windup which was kind of necessary to make the PVP combat work. We need time to react and have our inputs be placed in the controller which will always be slower to what we can react with our own bodies.

[Knaight]

Yes, I love spears. It's insane to me that quite possibly the single most used primary weapon in history (until firearms) is relegated to an oddity in most games. The worst, for me was Dragon Age 2 which even had the tag line "Fight like a Spartan" and there was not a single spear in the entire game.

I was already holding the lack of spears against it, but that line is just something special. What next, "Fight like a Mongol", followed by a complete and utter absence of both horses and bows?


I will say a word in Dark Souls defense though. While the basic spear is next to useless (at least in DS1 and 2) other options do become available later that do actually feel like they have some reach to them. As to speed, yeah they're still a bit on the slow side but I think a lot of weapons in those games have just a bit of delay when compared to real speed and windup which was kind of necessary to make the PVP combat work. We need time to react and have our inputs be placed in the controller which will always be slower to what we can react with our own bodies.

I get everything being slower, and pretty much expect it, although I'd argue that the Souls series takes it a bit too far. It's when weapons that have no business being way over on the slow end (e.g. spears) end up way over on the slow end that I start getting annoyed, and Dark Souls does that a fair bit. I probably could have picked a better example there though.

Still, my broader point remains. The new LoZ game has spears in it, and the advantages of spears are actually showing up. That's a big plus for me.

[The Glyphstone]

I sure as heck hope not - that sounds incredibly stupid. Why introduce more problems doing that when just having them fully installed on your own system, or having physical copies of the games, works better?

$$$.

If they can sell streaming 'subscriptions' to games no matter what the genre, and find a price point where they make more money from people replaying games versus play-once-and-forget, it'd be a net profit. It's dumb, but if they think it would make money, they'd try it for certain.

'They' being particularly soulless companies like EA at first, but the possibility of such a business practice becoming real isn't nonexistent.

[Legoshrimp]

$$$.

If they can sell streaming 'subscriptions' to games no matter what the genre, and find a price point where they make more money from people replaying games versus play-once-and-forget, it'd be a net profit. It's dumb, but if they think it would make money, they'd try it for certain.

'They' being particularly soulless companies like EA at first, but the possibility of such a business practice becoming real isn't nonexistent.

I think the only way this sort of thing would work at all as a netflix style subscription thing, which I honestly wouldn't be too bothered by. I think EA is actually already doing this, well not the streaming, but a subscription to be able to play some amount of their games.

Yeah they do it is called EA origin access. Seems interesting.
Not a huge selection, but some good games. I might actually try it if I didn't already have most of them.
https://www.origin.com/en-de/store/origin-access



I sure as heck hope not - that sounds incredibly stupid. Why introduce more problems doing that when just having them fully installed on your own system, or having physical copies of the games, works better?


The reason for streaming is so that you can, in theory, play any game on high quality through a web browser on any system that can stream video.

[Knaight]

The reason for streaming is so that you can, in theory, play any game on high quality through a web browser on any system that can stream video.

On the high end, it's also theoretically something that can let people play games that a normal computer just couldn't handle, by having a dedicated set of machines that do all the calculations and just take commands and export video instructions. In practice, I'm not expecting to see it as anything more than one of several distribution methods, and probably never the predominant one.

[EternalMelon]

@Spears and Darksouls

The winged spear (obtainable before undead burg) has great reach and is a perfectly fine weapon, most "basic" weapons are bad in the game any-ways, so the basic spear being bad is par for the course. Most weapons in the game are kinda slow (because the combat itself as a lot of weight) but spears weren’t that bad. Most of the time when you wanted fast jabs you would hold your shield up to attack, and reach attacks were the heavy attack. Heck, spears were so good on the original patch they got massively nerfed and are still fine.

Yeah, its not a perfect representation, but its probably in the top 3 as far as spears in video games go. Even though admittedly it is a pitiful pool.

[Knaight]

Yeah, its not a perfect representation, but its probably in the top 3 as far as spears in video games go. Even though admittedly it is a pitiful pool.

If strategy games are excluded (there's more than a few where polearms actually get stuff done), that's quite possibly true. So you can see where I'm coming from regarding enthusiasm for the new Zelda game. Bokokoblins aren't going to stab themselves.