I cannot place enough emphasis on my recommendation that you play the first 2 games before playing the third. I don't care if you don't get through them by March 6. Starting with part 3 is like jumping into a sweet trilogy by starting on book 3--only worse. If you care about story in games even in the least bit, you are doing yourself a huge disservice (IMO, obviously) by not playing the first two because they are both so epically awesome.
No other game trilogy I am aware of deserves this sort of disclaimer, so it's kind of counter-intuitive. But if you play them in order you can enjoy them all at face value. That's 3x the fun! If you play 3 first, it will seriously diminish your enjoyment of the first 2 (if you decide to play them). Also, if you play 1 and 2 first, it will enhance your playthrough of 3 immensely. . I played the demo and I was giddy with Joy to see one of the characters return as a prominent castmember. Don't rob yourself of the experience. It's 100% worth it.
Disclaimer: if you are just in it for a good shooter, go ahead and just play 3. We RPG nuts will just mourn silently for you.
This happened to me with ME2 recently. I actually think it's good for platforms like EA and Steam to allow for non-platform purchased games to be accessed on the platform via a registration code. It makes the platform more flexible.
Here's a question I have, though. Other than the fact that everybody already uses steam and doesn't want to have a mulit-platform game overlay for PC games (steam/origin/gamefly/onlive/direct2drive/amazon), why does everyone hate Origin? I bought Dragon Age 2 from Origin. The download was super fast, I could bypass the origin overlay altogether, I never had a problem playing the game, and I didn't care about multiplayer. As consumers, don't we want more, not less competition among publishers? To reiterate, I realize that it's annoying to have game x on origin, game y on steam, and game z on Onlinve or whatever other service. Other than this down-side and other than them restricting ME3 to origin only (which actually limits competition, perhaps), what specifically is wrong with Origin as a game platform?
I am not torn at all. I was so pissed off in part 2 [spoiler alert] when Ashley ignored me. Miranda was always just sloppy seconds. It's pretty sad how I excited I was to see Ashley front and center in part 3 in the Demo.
On the other hand, I don't really like her new hair. Also, I miss her pink armor.
Also, I'm going to try and go pretend I didn't just make a comment on a video game blog about a fictional video game love relationship with the phrase "I miss her pink armor" in it.
It seems to me that the logic: "JRPG's and WRPG's are not different. Look here are two examples the don't follow the stereotypes" is just as false as: "JRPG's are linear WRPG's are open. Look here are two games that are exhibit this distinction."
In my experience, (limited on the JRPG front) there's a palpable stylistic divide between the two genres. Our efforts to describe these differences result in generic terminology. Of course, not all games within each sub-genre will exhibit all the same generic characteristic we use to describe them--especially when you're looking at abstract terms such a linearity/openness, active/passive, story-emphasis/gameplay-emphasis. But that doesn't mean the generic terms aren't useful means to describe a certain game. So, I wouldn't say that distinction has been overstated as heavily as this article would suggest.
TL;DR I think you're understating the differences based on a small sample-size.
First, I agree Darksiders seems to be a Zelda clone. I also agree that it was a great game. One thing I've always wondered is why DS gets the "Zelda clone" comparison but the Batman Arkham games don't.
As far as I can tell the formula: fight dudes + unlock gear + use gear to solve puzzles and get upgrades + find more gear + go back to old areas and use new gear to solve more puzzles and get more upgrades + rinse & repeat is used in all three games.
But I haven't played a Zelda game since the N64 one. Could someone enlighten me? Is there some component of new Zelda's that DS has, that Batman games don't?
I am a story person, and to me, Mass Effect 1 was awesome. I probably liked the story of 1 more than 2. If you care about story at all, play both.
If you don't care for the story that much, ME1's combat is dated especially if you're expecting shooter rather than rpg. I'd still say give it a go. Full disclosure: I'm not a FPS type of person, so my FPS sensibilities weren't offended by either game. I have no FPS sensibilities.
But I echo Killroy 217's sentiments that the ME games are some of the best gaming experiences you can have. I walked away from both games having felt that I participated in a sweet action movie.
If you do like story in games, I wouldn't let the dated mechanics of ME1 deter you. After all, you can specialize as a sniper and then just 1 shot people in their toes (a hit anywhere with the sniper rifle counts as a head shot :) ).
The more I think about it, the more I think you're right. It's pretty much a pre-order via Kickstarter. I can see a more mainstream less niche franchise trying this and getting a less than positive response.
How many games would you pre-order based on the name of the developer and the genre alone? Apparently the words Double Fine adventure amount to a license to print money. Not so sure about other less reputable devs.
Also, if the practice became wide-spread even among triple-A type developers, I can see consumer fatigue setting in. "I just funded Halo 17, now Blizzard wants me to pony up for Diablo IV? No way." (Laughing at my own joke about DIablo IV).
This to me is a super interesting story. A couple of thoughts.
1) When I read that they were asking for $400,000 I was like, wow, that's a lot, they'll never get it. I was totally wrong.
2) I think it's interesting that the donors get a copy of the game. I wonder if the game will sell to anyone that didn't already buy the game through a Kickstart donation. Probably so, given how wrong I was on point 1) above.
3) I was kinda disappointed that "donors" only get rewards, and not dividends. It would be cool if donors could get a cut of profits in proportion to the size of the donation. That would obviously require some serious legal wrangling, but I think it'd be a cool idea.
That's a pretty good report of it. In a nutshell, Gertzman felt some pressure from higher ups sweeten his review of Kane and Lynch (an advertiser). He was fired. Then some Gamespot staffers left with him and they formed Giant Bomb. The incriminating evidence is all, of course, rumor.
Also, to be clear, I'm not lampooning Gamespot more than IGN. It's probably worse for IGN b/c of the direct correlation between high score and advertising. I'm just saying it smells a little fishy (rotten) given the advertising on both sites.
The incentive for publisher payoffs I think is quite high, though. Aggregate ratings from Metacritic I'm sure mean millions for game developers.
So, you have motive + vague scandal + circumstantial evidence. That's the strongest I'm willing to state my conclusion.
The Queue: Awesome music
Feb 28th 2012 5:19PM (WoW)I cannot place enough emphasis on my recommendation that you play the first 2 games before playing the third. I don't care if you don't get through them by March 6. Starting with part 3 is like jumping into a sweet trilogy by starting on book 3--only worse. If you care about story in games even in the least bit, you are doing yourself a huge disservice (IMO, obviously) by not playing the first two because they are both so epically awesome.
No other game trilogy I am aware of deserves this sort of disclaimer, so it's kind of counter-intuitive. But if you play them in order you can enjoy them all at face value. That's 3x the fun! If you play 3 first, it will seriously diminish your enjoyment of the first 2 (if you decide to play them). Also, if you play 1 and 2 first, it will enhance your playthrough of 3 immensely. . I played the demo and I was giddy with Joy to see one of the characters return as a prominent castmember. Don't rob yourself of the experience. It's 100% worth it.
Disclaimer: if you are just in it for a good shooter, go ahead and just play 3. We RPG nuts will just mourn silently for you.
EA clarifies Origin's ability to 'auto-add' games from other libraries
Feb 28th 2012 4:59PM (Joystiq)Here's a question I have, though. Other than the fact that everybody already uses steam and doesn't want to have a mulit-platform game overlay for PC games (steam/origin/gamefly/onlive/direct2drive/amazon), why does everyone hate Origin? I bought Dragon Age 2 from Origin. The download was super fast, I could bypass the origin overlay altogether, I never had a problem playing the game, and I didn't care about multiplayer. As consumers, don't we want more, not less competition among publishers? To reiterate, I realize that it's annoying to have game x on origin, game y on steam, and game z on Onlinve or whatever other service. Other than this down-side and other than them restricting ME3 to origin only (which actually limits competition, perhaps), what specifically is wrong with Origin as a game platform?
Mass Effect 3's 'Take Back Earth' trailer
Feb 20th 2012 6:42PM (Joystiq)I am not torn at all. I was so pissed off in part 2 [spoiler alert] when Ashley ignored me. Miranda was always just sloppy seconds. It's pretty sad how I excited I was to see Ashley front and center in part 3 in the Demo.
On the other hand, I don't really like her new hair. Also, I miss her pink armor.
Also, I'm going to try and go pretend I didn't just make a comment on a video game blog about a fictional video game love relationship with the phrase "I miss her pink armor" in it.
East Is West: How Two Classic RPGs Prove the Stereotypes False
Feb 16th 2012 8:02PM (Joystiq)In my experience, (limited on the JRPG front) there's a palpable stylistic divide between the two genres. Our efforts to describe these differences result in generic terminology. Of course, not all games within each sub-genre will exhibit all the same generic characteristic we use to describe them--especially when you're looking at abstract terms such a linearity/openness, active/passive, story-emphasis/gameplay-emphasis. But that doesn't mean the generic terms aren't useful means to describe a certain game. So, I wouldn't say that distinction has been overstated as heavily as this article would suggest.
TL;DR I think you're understating the differences based on a small sample-size.
Darksiders 2 rides into retail on June 26
Feb 14th 2012 3:38PM (Joystiq)First, I agree Darksiders seems to be a Zelda clone. I also agree that it was a great game. One thing I've always wondered is why DS gets the "Zelda clone" comparison but the Batman Arkham games don't.
As far as I can tell the formula: fight dudes + unlock gear + use gear to solve puzzles and get upgrades + find more gear + go back to old areas and use new gear to solve more puzzles and get more upgrades + rinse & repeat is used in all three games.
But I haven't played a Zelda game since the N64 one. Could someone enlighten me? Is there some component of new Zelda's that DS has, that Batman games don't?
Shiny Mass Effect 3 website launches 5 feature videos
Feb 10th 2012 3:46PM (Joystiq)I am a story person, and to me, Mass Effect 1 was awesome. I probably liked the story of 1 more than 2. If you care about story at all, play both.
If you don't care for the story that much, ME1's combat is dated especially if you're expecting shooter rather than rpg. I'd still say give it a go. Full disclosure: I'm not a FPS type of person, so my FPS sensibilities weren't offended by either game. I have no FPS sensibilities.
But I echo Killroy 217's sentiments that the ME games are some of the best gaming experiences you can have. I walked away from both games having felt that I participated in a sweet action movie.
If you do like story in games, I wouldn't let the dated mechanics of ME1 deter you. After all, you can specialize as a sniper and then just 1 shot people in their toes (a hit anywhere with the sniper rifle counts as a head shot :) ).
Double Fine Kickstarter passes $1 million in under 24 hours, breaking yet another record
Feb 9th 2012 11:08PM (Joystiq)The more I think about it, the more I think you're right. It's pretty much a pre-order via Kickstarter. I can see a more mainstream less niche franchise trying this and getting a less than positive response.
How many games would you pre-order based on the name of the developer and the genre alone? Apparently the words Double Fine adventure amount to a license to print money. Not so sure about other less reputable devs.
Also, if the practice became wide-spread even among triple-A type developers, I can see consumer fatigue setting in. "I just funded Halo 17, now Blizzard wants me to pony up for Diablo IV? No way." (Laughing at my own joke about DIablo IV).
Double Fine Kickstarter passes $1 million in under 24 hours, breaking yet another record
Feb 9th 2012 8:23PM (Joystiq)https://twitter.com/#!/doubleanna/status/167764236733390848/photo/1
Double Fine breaks Kickstarter funding records
Feb 9th 2012 2:22PM (Joystiq)1) When I read that they were asking for $400,000 I was like, wow, that's a lot, they'll never get it. I was totally wrong.
2) I think it's interesting that the donors get a copy of the game. I wonder if the game will sell to anyone that didn't already buy the game through a Kickstart donation. Probably so, given how wrong I was on point 1) above.
3) I was kinda disappointed that "donors" only get rewards, and not dividends. It would be cool if donors could get a cut of profits in proportion to the size of the donation. That would obviously require some serious legal wrangling, but I think it'd be a cool idea.
Metareview: Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning
Feb 8th 2012 5:46PM (Joystiq)http://techcrunch.com/2008/07/21/ex-gamespotters-launch-giantbomb-the-gaming-encyclopedia/
That's a pretty good report of it. In a nutshell, Gertzman felt some pressure from higher ups sweeten his review of Kane and Lynch (an advertiser). He was fired. Then some Gamespot staffers left with him and they formed Giant Bomb. The incriminating evidence is all, of course, rumor.
Also, to be clear, I'm not lampooning Gamespot more than IGN. It's probably worse for IGN b/c of the direct correlation between high score and advertising. I'm just saying it smells a little fishy (rotten) given the advertising on both sites.
The incentive for publisher payoffs I think is quite high, though. Aggregate ratings from Metacritic I'm sure mean millions for game developers.
So, you have motive + vague scandal + circumstantial evidence. That's the strongest I'm willing to state my conclusion.