What is wrong with me, or I like old games better than the games of today, wtf?

[walkertexasdruid]

The last game that I really enjoyed was Dragon Age, and that is fairly recent. And FF 13 is pretty good, aside from the fact that every three steps takes you into another movie clip. I have not played Skyrim yet, I am waiting for it to become a $19 Game of the Year eddition, though Oblivion is a pretty fun game. I did not want to come off as a snob, in fact I am worried that I am becoming "out of touch" with the current gaming world.

[The Artist Formerly Known as Hawk]

Some games are classics, therefore should be replayed endlessly for years on end. In fact I haven't gone back and played Deus Ex again this year, I should probably get on that at some point. I think the last older games I played were the Soul Reavers, but I realised part way throguh that whilst the first is awesome, the sequel was pretty crappy, so I've never managed to finish the entire series.

I also have way too many new games to get around to playing right now, like Borderlands 2, Transformers; Fall of Cybertron, Darksiders 2, Dust 514 and the upcoming Dishonoured. I also really need a new pc so I can play Guild Wars 2. Older games can wait for now, they're not going anywhere.

[walkertexasdruid]

Can anyone tell me how Dragon Age 2 stacked up against the first game?

[Bells]

i would even go ahead and say that if you like RPG's... if you like J RPG specially... you will ALWAYS prefer PS2 to PS3. There is just no fair away to compare it. The PS2 era had such an avalanche of series and unique games and stories that the PS3 simply has no chance to surpass.

There are some good RPGs on the PS3... for instance, Valkyria Chronicles is awesome (if i can relate the PSP version to the PS3 version, gameplay-wise) and there are quite a few others... but when you look back at PS1 and PS2, what's the proportion of new ips and unique styles for an RPG? 10 to 1?

There is just no way ...

[Krylo]

Originally Posted by walkertexasdruid

I am glad I am not the only one. As far as Legend of Dragoon goes, the final boss is very hard and it takes over two hours to beat him. The key is to have two offensive juggernaughts, Dart and Haschel for me, and someone who can do some healing, Rose for me. You also want to be stocked with equal parts angel's prayers (to bring you back to life) and magic potions (I forget what they are called, so you can coninually hammer away with the ultimate dragon cannon). Also when you get to its final form, it will turn one of your party members into a wierd creature. When it does, select the special command and you will heal the others in your party, and the affected character will eventually turn back to normal. Don't forget to equip Rose with the Dragon Buster Sword. With a little patience and luck you too can beat Legend of Dragoon.

What?

Dart and Haschel offensive power houses?

Rose as healer?

Man, okay, listen, the way the combo system, or whatever it's called, in that game works means that all characters, with their normal equipment (no accessories) end up doing exactly the same damage given equal levels if you can pull it off.

This means that Meru hits just as hard as Kongol.

And Dart.

And Haschel.

Now, the combo system does this by giving Meru the highest multipliplier to her damage if you finish her highest damage ability. Rose has second highest.

These characters are also the fastest characters.

This means multiple things:

Firstly, if you equip an accessory that is +10 damage to Meru or Rose it is actually worth more damage to them than it is to any other characters. Meru is best with this. I prefer speed increasing items on Rose to bring her up to Meru's speed, and the dragon buster on Rose.

Secondly, Meru and Rose will be doing their damage roughly twice as often as the rest of your party.

Now, add onto this that Meru has the highest (natural) magical defense in the game, high as Kongol's physical, meaning she's basically immune to magic attacks.

. . .And there's the Armor of Legend which has the highest physical defense in the game and is equippable by anyone. It's expensive so you probably only are going to get one, but do so. Give it to Meru.

Meru is now fast enough to hit twice as often as Dart or Haschel, does more damage per round than either of them, is immune to magic and physical damage, and, if, for some UNHOLY reason you feel the need to put her into Dragoon form, also has the best magic damage.

Rose is Meru-lite, able to do all that but not quite as well. Though Rose has less need for the Armor of Legend.

Using Rose and Meru this way makes the final boss into more of a half hour than a two hour ordeal, and makes the entire game incredibly easy.

Originally Posted by walkertexasdruid

Can anyone tell me how Dragon Age 2 stacked up against the first game?

As some one who legitimately likes DA2: Poorly.

It was rushed out the door. They had to reuse dungeon maps, didn't get around to properly balancing combat, instead relying on waves in every single fight, the city stays static over the entire time you're there, which is yeaaaars, because they didn't have time to properly do THAT either, the ending feels off/unfinished probably because they didn't have enough time to finish it, and it tells an entirely different KIND of story.

That said, I rather enjoyed the story it tells. It's not about being a big hero saving the world from a looming threat, though. It's about being thrown into situations spinning wildly out of your (and anyone else's) control and trying to make it through, regardless. The Champion of Kirkwall isn't a hero because s/he set out to be a hero. Hawke's a hero because s/he had no other choice in the matter.

There's also lots of great character writing, with SnarkHawke being just amazing, and the DLCs are fantastic and avoid all the problems of the actual game.

The core game mechanics are much improved as well.

[Krylo]

As for my feelings on the actual topic: See Snake-post. Maybe not EXACTLY how I feel, but very close to it.

[greed]

I honestly prefer modern games myself. Partly because I actually have the money to buy them and play them when they're new, whereas when I was a kid I usually got stuff way afterwards when it was in the $5 bin.

Oh and if you liked FF13 you really should get FF13-2. Also Tales of Graces F if you're hankering for JRPGs. Also Atelier Meruru.

Honestly it's been a pretty decent year for JRPGs thinking on it.

[Magus]

Rose-tinted glasses only go so far. I like older games too but I have to admit that the visceral thrill of stabbing two guys simultaneously with wrist daggers is something that could not be accomplished on the SNES, nor that as iconic or revolutionary as Grand Theft Auto III was that Grand Theft Auto IV didn't blow it away.

The state of JRPGs is pretty terrible, though...unless you had an XBOX and could play Lost Odyssey because I heard that one was pretty good.

[Krylo]

Lost Odyssey was, indeed, pretty good.

[Ramary]

My feelings on old games vs new ones are case by case really. There are some cases in which franchises got better with the times, for example, I think Mario is way better in 3D, and all the 2D ones coming out lately makes me disappointed. However I think the the problem is less games were better back then, it is more that the current game industry is fairly shitty on so many aspects. My problem is that games today could be so much fucking better, but they are not. We have better graphics and design (mostly) but the creative spark is missing.

There are also some franchises that I have issues with not doing anything different. My personal bugbear is Zelda. My favortiest game ever in the universe is Majora's Mask, which if you did not play it, it is wildly different in certain gameplay elements (you are essentially in a time loop) and tone (It is soul crushing at times) to the other Zeldas. But considering how Nintendo is barely messing with the formula now it is getting extremely boring for me, I have not really enjoyed a Zelda to a huge degree since Windwaker ( Twilight Princess was alright, the portable games have been fun with the exception of Phantom Hourglass which can fuck right off, and Skyward Sword I just could not get into at all).

"Appealing to a wider market" is also getting too common, since it waters down certain games, or outright changes them.

I am sick of every fucking mainstream game hand holding me like I am 5. If jumping out a window is gonna kill me, I don't care, I still want to do it.

Why does every fucking game need to be or have mutiplayer? What if I hate other people?

The general bullshit of online passes, shitty DRM, how gamestop turned used games into a racket, pre-order obsession (AKA BUY OUR GAME BEFORE WORD OF MOUTH REVEALS THAT IT IS CRAP) etc etc.

We also apparently have self-esteem issues. Since every time someone from other media works on a game we treat it as a big deal, like our art form is so shitty that even this jerk who only makes movies can clearly do it better.

Games using DLC poorly is crappy and common too. Like having way too much worthless DLC (Saints Row) or taking vital plot bits out for DLC (ME3).

I could go on, but I will stop.

Yet I still don't really go back to old games. Like Snake, I still rather play new games, I can only replay Majora's Mask so many times.

Although if the current industry ever does just turn into COMPLETE shit, I have a backlog of old PC games I never got around to.