Gaming General Chat Thread

[Merrymaker_Mortalis]

Playing Runescape again.
They changed so much that when I played my old character I went: WHAT IS GOING ON?

Rolled a new character and its fine.
It's a nice nostalgia trip with improvements.

Hard to play if you're used to the old system, but if you play it again from the start (tutorial) it makes sense.

[Bebop Man]

Playing Borderlands 2 (couch co-op), Resident Evil 6 (online co-op), Mirror's Edge and XCOM: Enemy Unknown.

Borderlands 2 is usually either better or at least as good as Borderlands. Having said that, I kinda fancied the non-plot of the first game. I like to feel I'm playing a character who's just going about his job in an impersonal way (cf. Mercenaries). First game was about some blokes on a quest for treasure, end story. The second game feels like a space opera I can't fully invest in. Anyway, we've been playing since December and I know I'm gonna get depressed once we're done.

Resident Evil 6 is made up of awful design choices. The cover-based shooting feels un-intuitive (press AIM to take cover, and left stick to AIM? What?), the driving sections and QTE barrages are egregious, and the level design is boring, consisting of dimly-lit, identically-looking warehouses and backalleys. In retrospect, it makes RE5 look as good as RE4. At least it had distinctive, memorable settings, and I could call places by their chapter. RE6 is one big spoonful of sameness. I'm only enjoying it because I'm playing with a friend.

Mirror's Edge is quite a lot of fun, looks gorgeous and even if it's a bit on the short side it has some replay value. On the fence about gameplay: is it the easy to learn / hard to master kind, or just plain bad design?

XCOM I haven't played so much (I still feel like I'm getting tutored by the game) but so far it looks like it could be my next big time sink, and I haven't had one of those in a while. Still a bit uncomfortable about Ironman mode, so I'm playing it vanilla.

[TStodden]

I wonder if my "Beginner's Guide" on GameFAQ's for Runescape is still relevant since I've stopped playing years ago...


With my tax refund coming in, I'm seriously considering getting an Alienware Alpha for a more dedicate gaming PC. My current PC is still OK, but aging a bit in terms of gaming / graphical performance & it would be nice to play my Steam library on my TV. If I can swing it, I'll likely order directly from Dell (working my employee discount) so I can go with the higher-end of their specs... but I'll get a USB wireless keyboard + trackpad to go with it & I have plenty of 360 controllers for local multiplayer.

I was considering on getting a Wii U, but the pull for a Steam Box is a bit greater. Thoughts?

[Kapol]

Just a reminder to anyone with them, the last day to register Club Nintendo codes is the 31st. After that, they're going to become useless. You can check out Club Nintendo to see the rewards available and if you have enough. And if anyone has any from the NA region they're not planning on using, I would appreciate it if I could use them. I'm trying to get up to the Majora's Mask Messenger bag.

With my tax refund coming in, I'm seriously considering getting an Alienware Alpha for a more dedicate gaming PC. My current PC is still OK, but aging a bit in terms of gaming / graphical performance & it would be nice to play my Steam library on my TV. If I can swing it, I'll likely order directly from Dell (working my employee discount) so I can go with the higher-end of their specs... but I'll get a USB wireless keyboard + trackpad to go with it & I have plenty of 360 controllers for local multiplayer.

I was considering on getting a Wii U, but the pull for a Steam Box is a bit greater. Thoughts?

Personally, I think it'd be better to just build your own PC if you have the ability to unless you need the space a smaller dedicated box would bring. Or upgrade your current machine if possible. It'll save you a decent amount of money and have better future versatility options. That said, go with what you prefer. If you're not comfortable building your own, or do need the space that the Alienware would provide, then a pre-built or a steam-box would work fine.

[Merrymaker_Mortalis]

If you lack the confidence to build a PC, call in a favour from a computer competent person or buy it pre-built.
Pre-built machines can come with warranty for the whole thing.
You're paying for peace of mind.

[My pseudonym is Ix]

Maybe, but that 'peace of mind' will generally cost you in the region of $500-1000. Pre-built gaming PCs have a quite colossal markup

[Merrymaker_Mortalis]

Is it worth buying Dragon Age Inquisition for £35, or should I wait until it goes on sale (if ever?)
I'm a fan of the series, I even found #2 not bad.

[Robo4900]

Definitely wait. Especially if you use Steam.

[Merrymaker_Mortalis]

DAI is on steam?!

[Kapol]

My thoughts on Professor Layton Vs Phoenix Wright:

So I bought and finished Professor Layton Vs Phoenix Wright. I'm going to give my opinion on it in a moment, but I'm going to start with saying this much. If you like both game series, this game is an easy pick-up. Both styles of gameplay are there. So if you dislike Professor Layton or Phoenix Wright games, avoid this one. But it certainly pays respects to both series. And I like it for that.

So how do I feel about the game itself? It's a strong entry into both series. The Professor Layton puzzles seemed much easier than the first one. But I don't really mind that it is. The trials had all of the same problems as the rest of the Phoenix Wright games. You can know the answer to the problem, but be uncertain how to actually *show* that answer. This bothered me more than was likely reasonable, as the fact you're penalized in points for 'missing' the mark kind of grated on me.

For those who have never played either series before, I would recommend trying out the original games before you play this one. There's a lot of character interactions that would be lost on a new player. Gameplay-wise, it's not a bad starting point. But crossover games kind of rely on the player knowing who the characters are rather than spending time establishing them. Professor Layton And The Curious Village is fairly cheap. And you can pick up the first three Phoenix Wright games on 3DS eShop for $30.

So now that the ad-like part is out of the way...

----------------------------------

Gameplay

The gameplay of Professor Layton Vs. Phoenix Wright is split into two different sections. The first is an exploration section. You go around to different areas searching for the flavor of the day. You can also pick up hint coins and find hidden puzzles. The backgrounds are pretty static overall, so it's not like you're exploring the environment as much as a variety of pictures that you can travel between.

The exploration stage is mostly an excuse to find puzzles for the player to solve. The puzzles span a variety of types. But they're mostly just brain-teasers. The first puzzle, as an example, is the type where you have a character going straight ahead down an aisle. You can activate or deactivate paths. They move forward until they run into a path, at which point they cross over to the connected aisle. You have to get two characters to their respective homes on one try.

One thing I liked is that the majority of them were set up so you can't fail. That doesn't mean you can just ignore the puzzle and move forward. But you don't normally have to worry about losing out on points earned. Not that the points really do anything anyways. The game also let's you use hint coins to show advice on how to beat puzzles. So if you're stuck, you're not going to just hit a wall and not be able to do anything (unless you run out of hint coins, which is hard).

So there's puzzle mode. The next mode is where mister Wright comes in. You act as a 'defender.' Or, to put it another way, a lawyer. You take on cases. It's up to you to prove the innocence of your clients. You have to find contradictions and flaws in witness testimony. You have some evidence, which is often given to you before and during the case. It's up to you to find the flaws in their statements and present evidence to clear your clients' names.

It's a lot like an adventure game in many respects. Rub evidence A against statement B until person C goes insane. This game loses out on the crime scene investigation from Phoenix Wright, as it's replaced by the puzzle segments. As a nice bonus, the hint coin feature works here as well. If you're stuck in a section, using a hint coin will help narrow down the options and show you how to move forward.

------------------------------------

Story

After I finish giving the basic feedback, I intend to give a short rant about what I feel worked and what didn't with the story. But the story basically boils down to this.

Professor Layton, Luke, Phoenix Wright, and Maya are sucked into the mystery of the world of Labyrinthia. It's a storybook world set in medieval times. A world of knights, kings, and witches. A town where destiny is written by a single man. Magic exists in this world. It's up to the combined powers of the two title characters to figure out what exactly is going on in this town, unravel the mystery of the magic, and help out a new friend.

Without going into spoilers, that's the basic idea behind the entire game. The story has the usual twists and turns one would expect from either title franchise. I honestly enjoyed the story despite my upcoming complaints. The story was enough to keep my interest throughout. Most of my issues tend to be with where the game ended up going rather than the journey there.

The characters deserve special mention. All of the characters had their own unique personality. There were the goofball characters you should expect. Many of them help make the experience enjoyable. Even when they're making life tough on you, it's hard not to like the rapscallions. A cute little dog that's also a knight, a kind baker woman with a love of bread, and an... overenthusiastic drunk.

The only issue I really had was with Layton himself. He is always played off as this near-omniscient genius who seemingly has everything figured out long before you or any character does. Wright makes a fun counterpoint. The genius put next to a kind of derpy guy makes for a good counterpoint. It just too often felt like the really smart kid making the dull but loveable kid feel 'smart' in that condescending way.

---------------------------------

Music, animation, and other thoughts

The music is one of the few problems I had with the game. It was good. Don't get me wrong about that. But hearing the same song on a constant loop could get to be obnoxious. I will say that the game does something really solid with the audio during court cases. Want to know if you were right or wrong on an objection right away? If the music stops, you got it. If not, you've likely messed up.

Similarly, the animations were all solid. By which I mean the character animations, not the animated cutscenes. It's just too bad that most of the major characters only had about 10 separate animations. Watching the prosecutor pull out his sword for the 20th time that court case, and seeing the 3D models stand out against the 2D backgrounds was somewhat off-putting. Not to mention Layton himself against everyone else.



Look at those eyes. Those cold, dead eyes. (He's the guy on the far left, for those who don't know)

-----------------------

Length

The game took me officially 20 hours to beat. I would say it was closer to 21-22. But it was one of the few examples where I was rarely bored with the game. The only thing that did bother me was traveling back to areas just to see if anyone new popped up. But that wasn't too much of an issue, thankfully. Any missed puzzles could be completed later. But you do miss out on the character interactions that they bring.

-------------------------------

Final thoughts

It's been a long time since I played either game. I've been meaning to play this entry for a long while. And I'm glad I finally got around to it. Professor Layton Vs Phoenix Wright was a lot of fun. Despite the problems I've had with the story, it was a fun ride. As I started with, if you like both series to some degree, pick this up. I don't think you'll regret it. If you haven't checked one or the other out, I do recommend looking into the series. Certainly before playing this one.

----------------------------------

Spoiler thoughts

This is going to be a bit of a rant based on the direction the game went. So here we go... spoilers ahoy!

Click to Expand

So, the main point the game establishes early is that, in this world, magic is real. There are witches. They do magic. They're 'bad.' Etc. But, in the end, we learn that the magic of the town is, in fact, a lie. There's no such thing as magic, STUPID. This is professor Layton we're talking about. Logic > magic.

Now that me getting a bit childish is out of the way, I'm disappointed they did end up moving away from magic being a thing. I was fully willing and did accept that magic was happening. This is a video game. We actively saw four different people get absorbed into a book of the world. That's semi-explained later in the game as being due to the ink of the book. But that seems like a fairly major cop-out to me. It doesn't explain how a visiting foreign attorney was abducted in the middle of the court house without anyone knowing.

More than that, there's a scene at the beginning where statues in the middle of London come to life and throw a car. We see the results of this before the 'magic' could come into play. And yet, this isn't really explained. I'm sure I could come up with something. But I feel like it's a fairly big oversight.

These facts kind of lead to me thinking they ended up taking the easy way out. The magic aspect turned out to be a way to make a Truman Show situation. Including a bunch of 'invisible' machinery and active magical devices. All for the storyteller's daughter and her friend.

What bothers me is that I accepted the magic aspect. This is a game after all. Magic can exist in the game. There's no reason for it not to other than the writer deciding it doesn't. But then, at the end, we find out that instead of Magic, we get what is essentially magic potions. They apparently have potions to wipe peoples memories, hypnotize them, and do whatever is convenient for the plot. There's also a nice little thing that everyone has where the sound of silver resonating causes people to pass out.

So instead of magic, we get hypnosis, knock-out virus, 'invisible' items like machinery and cloaks, a man who basically controls the fate of the town, and the explanation that everyone signed up to be part of this experiment.

I would have preferred sticking with magic myself.

It wouldn't be as bad if it felt like they had hinted at it more during the early game. But it's not really until chapter 6+ that we really get any kind of indication that anything is wrong. And even that is minor stuff that makes sense with magic being real.

Honestly, the way I figured the game was going to go was under the assumption that magic was real. I assumed Eve (the cat) was going to turn out to be Espella's mom... the great witch Bezella. It'd be revealed that the witches played a major part in the survival of the town. Basically putting into play that they're the source of the materials that the town uses. Phoenix would have to try to use evidence to prove that she is, in fact, a good person, rather than the evil who brings calamity. She would take anyone 'killed' by Magic to become a shade, using her magic to reshape them if they proved they were ready to rejoin the town. The storyteller would be revealed as being her husband... a secret that would come into play when Darklaw is revealed as the one who killed the storyteller.

Part of this is because I felt they put too much focus on Eve for her to not end up really being anything.

While I think I would have preferred the way I mentioned, that doesn't mean I disliked the current end. It made for a solid story. The story just didn't feel as strong as it could have been. The last 3 chapters just felt like a stumble to me. Not a bad one, and one that they recovered from easily. But still a stumble.

And there I have it. I hope at least one person found this interesting... I just wanted to get my thoughts out about the game. I enjoyed it. That much is for sure. And if people liked me doing this, I might do it for another game I've been playing in a similar vein... Persona Q.

[Robo4900]

DAI is on steam?!

I don't know; I tend to assume that anything released since 2004 is on Steam, unless I know otherwise for a fact.

[ch3m1kal]

DAI is on steam?!

I don't know; I tend to assume that anything released since 2004 is on Steam, unless I know otherwise for a fact.

And for the most part you'd be right, unfortunately DA:I is an EA product so it's exclusive to Origin.

[My pseudonym is Ix]

So... on the advice of Extra Credits, I've got into playing Mount & Blade: Warband recently, and OH MY GOD YOU GUYS IT'S SO DAMN GOOD. The graphics are famously appalling and the character interactions quite hilariously oversimplified, but it's an incredibly functional design and it's endlessly compelling to play. The combat system is, quite simply, the best I've ever encountered in any RPG-esque title, valuing skill above gear yet being elegant in its simplicity and offering plenty of opportunities to learn 'on-the-job', and I've pumped nearly 20 hours into it in the space of a couple of days. Impressive for someone for whom game retention is a major problem (see below for some examples).

Now, M&B is a Paradox Interactive title (not that I realised when buying it), adding to the increasingly long list of reasons why Paradox are the greatest game developer/producer in the 'AAA space' right now. And M&B has a lot of the stereotypical Paradox features- built in flexibility of approach and style via an open-ended design, vast amounts of hidden depth and complexity and a rather cavalier attitude to the concept of a tutorial. Most notably, however, is it's approach to story, and this is what I wish to talk about here.

Paradox games do not, as a rule, have any particularly defined plot. Arguably, all their games approach the concept of gaming from the angle of a simulation rather than a traditional story-centred experience, in that they cannot be 'won' or 'beaten' and have no defined victory condition. In each case, the compelling aspect of play is the way they allow you to tell your own stories, and the way the very design of the game assists in this. My current Crusader Kings game, for example, is telling the story of the rise of a Welsh dynasty to conquer vast swathes of Europe through the usual mixture of political intrigue and carefully picking one's battles. Within that, there are the smaller tales- of rebellions fought off, of careful marriages winning far more than the point of a sword, and of the randy bastards who spend their time in power sleeping with all their vassals' wives. Mount & Blade is no exception- in the broad strokes, my current game is the tale of a nondescript mercenary captain going from bandit hunter to minor vassal to (hopefully) future king of Calradia, but in the meantime tells the stories of heroic castle sieges and attempting to win the hand of a suitable fair maiden. All incredibly good fun... but I'm at a loss to describe why.

It's not so much a question of why these things are compelling- telling those kinds of stories is a key component to a lot of games (and is, incidentally, perhaps the main reason why Assassin's Creed IV was so much more fun than either is predecessor or successor in the AC franchise). But the story-lite approach is one that habitually frustrates me no end when playing RPGs. Despite sinking some 60 hours into it, I never completed the main storyline of Skyrim, nor did I really enjoy a lot of the experience, as I kept being distracted by sidequests that would eat up hours upon hours of gameplay through dungeon crawl after dungeon crawl. Indeed, vast swathes of my Steam library, lauded games all, have fallen to my dislike of this style of gameplay: Fallout 3, Mafia II, Titan Quest, Saint's Row the Third, Far Cry 3 (what is it about these games & threes?)- and if we include games that I couldn't stick just because I found them slow and unfocused in their story, sacrificing a good gaming experience for the sake of an open world, we include such gems as Bioshock (1 & 2), Dishonored, Half Life 2, the Total War series, Papers Please and Psychonauts. I know I'm terrible, but I just couldn't stick those great, brilliantly designed games. They didn't interest me enough to make me hang around.

Perhaps the crowned king of making me disinterested in a game through it's approach to story is Civilisation V. My friends love it, Cam loves it, the strategy community at large loves it, and I've sunk about 30 hours into it myself. But I just cannot bring myself to enjoy it, simply because it to me offers next to no flexibility of approach and doesn't tell any particularly interesting story. A typical Civ game starts with an early period of expansion and settling new cities, with the usual early-game rush for wonders and agonising worrying over expansion versus development, a mid-game period of military expansion and jostling for position (the period in which most territory gets exchanged), and a late game period of consolidation and rushing toward victory conditions. On larger maps there's usually a bit more inter-state warring, but the formula remains largely the same. And every civilisation follows this exact pattern, all beginning to resemble one another in identikit monocultures towards game's end, with even the choices one makes regarding culture, religion and ideology making very little visible difference to individual civilisations. Where is all the great drama of history- the rise & fall of great empires and leader figures, of political turmoil tearing once-great nations to shreds, of new nations rising from the ashes of others, of victory through skulduggery and political trickery rather than sheer military might? A 'golden age' is signified by a almost insignificant increase in overall wealth & production- where is the rise of a great leader, the sudden political revolution? In the world of a Civ game, the people over at Extra History would seemingly have nothing to write about. And finally, there's the victory conditions- for starters, there is the inherent ridiculousness in the idea that a civilisation may be considered to have 'won', implying that human society can ever be considered complete. And then there's how utterly hollow these conditions of victory are- completely arbitrary distinctions existing solely to provide closure to the game rather than because they mean something. One of Cam's streamed Civ games is a prime example- he 'won' by declaring world peace, achieved by effectively bribing the world's city states to agree with them, only for the two other powers to declare war on him FOUR TURNS LATER, resulting in the most destructive war his world had ever seen that would have cost billions of lives and resulted in a net tactical gain of practically zero for both sides. How's that for a hollow treatise of peace?

Now, the reasoning for all this is very simple- Civilisation as a franchise attempts to model 5,000 years of human development through a single, very simple game engine, and do so in a fashion that means a game can be over in just a few hours (by contrast, Crusader Kings II covers just 1066-1300AD ish in the base game, and I've never got beyond 1200AD in over 100 hours of gameplay). Moreover, it is primarily a game played from an entirely tactical perspective rather than a story-based one- an e-sport, albeit one played between friends and AI rather than in an ultra-competitive LoL-esque environment. Given I'm not interested in games from any competitive standpoint, fair enough- but it makes an interesting counterpoint to the Paradox approach to story.

And with that painfully shoehorned in segue, we return to the concept of a Paradox open-ended story- why is it that I can find stories of my own to tell in a story of that type, and yet not when playing Civ or any more traditional 'open world' gaming experience? The best answer I can come up with is that in a Paradox title, the story I'm looking for is always there, whenever I want it. In a game like Far Cry, the 'build your own story' aspect is dealt with through things like hunting and base assaults, things specifically designed for purpose, and that can fail to be compelling after you've screwed up for the umpteenth time or you're having to slog halfway across the map to go & look for it. In Civilisation, this aspect of gameplay is simply difficult to see beneath the view simplified, tactical utility that everything is presented in. In Mount & Blade, the story and gameplay are so interwoven as to be one and the same- when you go & root out a bandit camp, you're both getting some really good fighting done (made more interesting by the fact that it's location means you can't ride in all swords a-flicker), and also working your way up the social ladder of the local lord, who will hopefully either a) grant you a fief of your own, bringing in some cash and allowing you to support a larger army or b) let you marry his daughter, bringing prestige, honour and claims on further lands & holdings. And, crucially, there is no story beyond this- every single aspect of gameplay reflects back to the core 'plot' of building your character's rank, renown and standing, offering nothing more than the space in which to create story. To pervert a quote of Einstein's, Paradox never tell a plot. The merely create an environment in which we can experience story.

...that kinda got off track, but these thoughts have been rattling around my brain for days. So what do you guys think? Either regarding Mount & Blade and Paradox games in general, the role an execution of story within games, and/or my abysmal taste when it comes to rejecting famously superb games. Would be interesting to see your thoughts

[Jamfalcon]

I'm a huge fan of the Mount & Blade games too, and actually just tried and failed to describe them anywhere near that well a couple days ago. They are definitely compelling in a way that's very different from most other games. I've put in over 100 hours on both the original and Warband (and conquered everything in Warband), but I'm itching to start a new character after reading this.

Regarding the story of games, I think M&B and others like it fall into a wholly different category than something like SKyrim. Not only is there no predetermined story, I think a lot of people would go into it like any other game, play a few hours, and feel like it was repetitive. You have to think a little to get the story out of it, since it's not plainly spelled out in dialogue and cutscenes. But yeah, when you decide to sink some serious time into it, it's an incredibly rewarding game with a lot of depth.

[My pseudonym is Ix]

I can't really comment on the extremes of the game's depth simply due to play time- I haven't got any claims of my own or even done much as a vassal (Khergit Khanate, for anyone who's interested). I also haven't played as a woman, which I'm told adds an entire other dynamic and level of difficulty.

[Jamfalcon]

Excellent choice, I do love playing with the Khergit. Their soldiers aren't the best when it comes to sieges, but having the entire army on horseback can make battles on open fields into a cake walk.

I did play a female character on my Warbland playthrough, and was a bit disappointed actually, I didn't feel like it made things too much more difficult. It was harder to become a vassal in the first place, and a lot more difficult to get married, but that's about it. The other big advantage/downside is that your husband is one of the lords, so that brings in land an another loyal army. The problem is, he can get captured and, like mine, end up fleeing the country forever.

[empath]

One of us...one of us one of us one of us...

[Phailhammer]

For me, Paradox games definitely shine in telling their own stories. One of my favourite things about them is just watching what other parts of the world do, both on their own and as a result of your actions. I have had several games where the political outlook of Europe, or the world, depending on the game, has completely changed over the course of only a decade. A nation can go from the dominant power in their part of the world, to a shell of their former selves after a war or revolution.

I love the extent to which these games go off the rails of history, but remain plausible for the most part. It's always fun to see what could have been, like what the world would have been like had Germany won the First World War. That scenario, I have seen covered in gameplay and though mods ("Kaiserreich: The Legacy of the Weltkreig" for Darkest Hour, specifically). Each time, in game, it has been different. That is why I come back to these.

One of my favourite experiences was a Crusader Kings II (later Europa Universalis IV) game I had as the Byzantine emperor, beginning at the Old Gods start point (876). Over the course of 600 years, my actions, and those of the AI, resulted in a very different Europe to our own. The main ones would have to be the mending of the Great Schism, the invasion of Germany, and the restoration of the Roman Empire. The first played a crucial part in the destruction of two countries: Great Bohemia and England; the second practically destroyed the Holy Roman Empire's capacity to act as a major power; and the third gave me license to reconquer former Roman lands, bringing me into direct conflict with Francia.

For those who don't know, mending the Great Schism in Crusader Kings II is a decision you can enact as a Christian ruler (I think you have to specifically be either Orthodox or Catholic, and not one of their heresies) when you are in control of the five sees of the Pentarchy (Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Constantinople). Upon enacting this, most of Christian Europe will flip to the other main branch, and many rulers will too. It also makes the other branch a heresy of the restoring one (Catholicism becoming an Orthodox heresy in my case).

The kings of England and Great Bohemia did not convert to Orthodoxy, and were thus viewed as heretics by most of Europe, allowing use of the holy war casus belli. Great Bohemia had already been losing territory steadily over the years, and this proved the final nail in the coffin, untimately falling to the Christianised Golden Horde and the Roman Empire. England was in better shape, but unfortunately had the powerful Empire of Francia across the channel, who soon invaded and slowly took the place over.

Francia also benefited from the Aztec Invasion that tore Spain apart in the 14th century; they were the ones to reclaim most of the territory from the Aztecs. The Iberian peninsula ended up as a patchwork of territories, controlled by the Spanish and Portuguese, and the two main powers of the western Metiterranean: the Francian and Roman Empires.

Through all this, the Holy Roman Empire held on, in spite of Francian, Roman, and later Mongol, assaults on its borders. It lost a fair bit of territory, but its major blow came in the form of a Norse invasion from the north. I don't remember who it was exacly (King of Sweden, I think), but one of the Norse rulers set their sights on Germany and won. This resulted in the somewhat unusual sight of a Germany centered on Scandinavia. The rump was actually almost incorporated into the Roman Empire; the HRE did away with elective sucession, almost resulting in a union. The same thing happened in England. The evidence of these failed unions is the Roman enclaves in East Anglia and Thuringia.

This whole situation has resulted in a Europe largely divided between four main powers: the Roman Empire around the Mediterannean, the Black Sea, and in the Middle East and south east Europe; Francia in Western Europe and the British Isles; the Golden Horde in Eastern Europe; and (Norse)Germany in Scandinavia and Germany itself. Gone are the city states and duchies of Italy, once again under Imperial Roman control. Ther was a 1066-esque invasion of England, but for a different cause by a different ruler. The Turks never settled in Anatolia, so no Ottomans in their historical form (I think I may have seen an Osman dynasty somewhere). As for the EUIV side of things, the Aztecs have overrun Central America and the Great Plains, and the Inca are uncontested in the south. I'd love to see Spain try to take on this lot.

Who knows how the modern era of this world would look.

[Kapol]

So... the movie rights for Five Nights At Freddy's has just been purchased. There aren't many games I can think of that I'd want to see less as a movie. I don't think Five Nights At Freddy's will translate well to film. The reason it was so scary was due to the tense atmosphere of the game. You constantly had to be paying attention. If you didn't, you died. That feels like it won't translate well to an inherently non-interactive medium.

The story of the series is interesting. But I don't think it'd work incredibly well as a movie either.

Honestly, altogether, it feels like it's going to end up being a bad Paranormal Activity knock-off.

[Phailhammer]

I hope it doesn't, but you're probably right.

[Kapol]

I hope it doesn't either. I guess I'm cynical of any game-based movie. Let alone one like this.

In other news, new Deus Ex announced. Jensen returning. I'm super hyped.

[ANeMzero]

I'm actually dreading the new Deus Ex. The choice to make it so none of the endings to HR were canon is almost as bad as Invisible Wars choice to make every ending from DX1 canon.

I worry that a returning protagonist is going to change the conspiracy tone of the game. Jensen has already seen beneath the surface, while certainly there are things he is unsure about, he isn't about to be surprised by these revelations. He also isn't reacting to events outside of his control, the inciting event of the game was his choice.

Finally the trailer just didn't show anything that felt like Deus Ex. It looked like it was trying to be Crysis.

Also Malik isn't returning. I liked her. I know the previous game left it open for her to quite clearly not return, but considering how Mankind Divided is handling the endings of HR (ignoring them completely) it wouldn't have stepped on any more toes to bring her back.

I hope it turns out good, I really, really do. However I am fully prepared at this point for Invisible War 2.

[Kapol]

Before I respond (since I'm on mobile), where are you getting that information? As far as I know, all we've gotten so far is the reveal trailer.

[Merrymaker_Mortalis]

I seem to now do Gaming when I am at home and not busy.
I'm happy that I have actually turned gaming into a hobby instead of a need.

Again I have shown myself that I can be very happy and not have internet access (as long as I have very good company).

[MetricFurlong]

I'm actually dreading the new Deus Ex. The choice to make it so none of the endings to HR were canon is almost as bad as Invisible Wars choice to make every ending from DX1 canon.
I worry that a returning protagonist is going to change the conspiracy tone of the game. Jensen has already seen beneath the surface, while certainly there are things he is unsure about, he isn't about to be surprised by these revelations. He also isn't reacting to events outside of his control, the inciting event of the game was his choice.

Finally the trailer just didn't show anything that felt like Deus Ex. It looked like it was trying to be Crysis.

Also Malik isn't returning. I liked her. I know the previous game left it open for her to quite clearly not return, but considering how Mankind Divided is handling the endings of HR (ignoring them completely) it wouldn't have stepped on any more toes to bring her back.

I hope it turns out good, I really, really do. However I am fully prepared at this point for Invisible War 2.

I think you're making far too much out of a few minutes of cinematics. Consider that Human Revolution's original trailer looked like this, which doesn't really say all that much about the actual game (and contains at least one scene that never actually occurs in the game), but also lead to its fair share of doom-saying at the time.

Before I respond (since I'm on mobile), where are you getting that information? As far as I know, all we've gotten so far is the reveal trailer.

IIRC, there was one Russian site that made some claims about this sort of informtation back when the announcement broke. Eidos have largely denied them though. So unless anything new and confirmed is out, at the moment everything's just rumour.

Currently, my main question is about whether this game will be released before we hear anything more about that Cyberpunk 2077 game CDProjekt Red announced they were supposedly developing 3 years ago