|
|
|
networkn:
@gehenna did you get a chance to play it yet? First impressions?
I played the prologue and a few hours of the campaign. It's a DENSE map, certainly the city - haven't explored wider much yet. Mechanics are similar but different. I played AC1 when it came out but personally, I've preferred the mechanics since Origins. Still, it's pretty fun given its focus is squarely on assassinations so far. It feels stripped back to its core mvp mechanics. Skills are easy to understand and there aren't a lot of branches to the trees. Upgrades seem a simple combo of $ and 2-3 resources.
gehenna:
I played the prologue and a few hours of the campaign. It's a DENSE map, certainly the city - haven't explored wider much yet. Mechanics are similar but different. I played AC1 when it came out but personally, I've preferred the mechanics since Origins. Still, it's pretty fun given its focus is squarely on assassinations so far. It feels stripped back to its core mvp mechanics. Skills are easy to understand and there aren't a lot of branches to the trees. Upgrades seem a simple combo of $ and 2-3 resources.
Yeah, I really enjoyed later game mechanics. I think I'll wait till it goes on special or a second hand copy comes up cheap.
Certainly looks really nice in quality mode but i switched to performance which is good enough

Origins, Odyssey, and Valhalla all had a Discovery Mode where you could explore the world with no combat and take in sights and references like a virtual museum tour.
Disagree with the Origins comparison. Perhaps aesthetically given the region it's set, but mechanically it's a completely different game, from a different lineage of game mechanics. Origins was heavily criticised for diverging from the mechanics that Mirage has brought back. Odyssey and Valhalla expanded on that, moving it further away from the stealth and parkour focus, to an RPG-lite kind of focus. Don't get me wrong, I personally prefer those three from Origins to Valhalla, I was never a big fan of the original AC games, but I can certainly see that Mirage has taken a big step away from those three games. Would not surprise me if they get into a regular release cycle of games which embrace both mechanic styles. They may as well be bringing out a main game once a year, so I'd imagine they have thought about increasing that, and given Mirage is a much smaller game (30gb vs 100gb, open world vs dense city), I suspect, with no evidence, it's not as long of a development journey.
Counterstrike 2
24 years since I first played and the franchise is still going strong.
I started playing Ratchet and Clank on the steamdeck. I'm really quite pleased that Sony is bringing a lot of their games to PC.
I didn't buy a PS5 at launch and I wasn't willing to pay scalper prices so we don't have one. Ratchet and Clank is one of the titles I really wanted to play so it's a good compromise.
I'm spending a lot of time on planes in the next few weeks so it's great it plays on Steam deck.
networkn:
Struggling to get into Starfield, and Baldurs Gate feels really hard to play.. Cruising along, following where my nose takes me, get into an unwinnable battle.. Sigh.
Eventually I will end up buying and playing BG3 - probably when I finish Starfield (if ever). I'm interested to know in what sense you find it hard to play. Too hard, too complicated, not intuitive, ....?
Sometimes I just sit and think. Other times I just sit.
eracode:
Eventually I will end up buying and playing BG3 - probably when I finish Starfield (if ever). I'm interested to know in what sense you find it hard to play. Too hard, too complicated, not intuitive, ....?
It can be great fun, but it's not very linear in terms of it's difficulty.
Generally, a game will get harder as you progress, but with BG3, you can be adventuring along, have fun and challenging combat, happen on an area that seems to be progressing the story naturally, and then need to restore from an earlier save and stay away from that area, because all of a sudden you are vastly out numbered by NPC's who are so stupidly OP compared to your level, it's not possible to beat them. It's not unusual for a single combat occurrence to take 45 minutes to complete.
I think it's the type of game you'd enjoy, no doubt in my mind, I just have found some elements less fun for the above reasons.
I almost certainly will complete it.
networkn:
It can be great fun, but it's not very linear in terms of it's difficulty.
Generally, a game will get harder as you progress, but with BG3, you can be adventuring along, have fun and challenging combat, happen on an area that seems to be progressing the story naturally, and then need to restore from an earlier save and stay away from that area, because all of a sudden you are vastly out numbered by NPC's who are so stupidly OP compared to your level, it's not possible to beat them. It's not unusual for a single combat occurrence to take 45 minutes to complete.
I think it's the type of game you'd enjoy, no doubt in my mind, I just have found some elements less fun for the above reasons.
I almost certainly will complete it.
Thanks. I remember having to do this in Witcher III - having to come back later when I was higher-levelled and with stronger potions and poisons. Didn’t particularly like having to do that but if the game is pretty good overall I guess I wouldn’t be too concerned.
Sometimes I just sit and think. Other times I just sit.
eracode:
Thanks. I remember having to do this in Witcher III - having to come back later when I was higher-levelled and with stronger potions and poisons. Didn’t particularly like having to do that but if the game is pretty good overall I guess I wouldn’t be too concerned.
For me it ruined a number of what felt like organic natural exploration modes. A lot of games just adjust your opponents to your current level, ala Diablo 4 for example.
|
|
|