Withywarlock

It's not often, but yes, whenever the chance crops up to do something cleverly, charismatically or covertly, I'll take that over a violent approach any day of the week. Unfortunately it's not often I play games where said chances come up. As nice as it is to hear satisfying weapon sounds, it's equally nice to have done something differently and the developers acknowledge that as a possibility.

World of Warcraft's Legion was oft hailed as the best expansion since The Burning Crusade/Wrath of the Lich King, depending on which you played first (if neither, it was the best expansion period), especially for its story. However, it was apocalyptic to its lore: it was decided and made canon right there and then that your race and culture followed the same lore as everyone else. Trolls were hit the hardest: the Light that previously came from the Loa was just the same Light used by the Draenei, Humans, Dwarves and Gnomes. That Hex Priests (Warlocks) didn't manipulate and bargain with spirits, rather they drew upon the demons beyond the Twisting Nether... like every. Warlock. Ever. That Sunwalker Paladins of the Tauren had the exact same goals and ideals, as well as drawing power from their god, was the same as the others. Forsaken (sentient undead) Warriors were granted immortality by the Valkyre because of their class hub. Legion's story works if you disregard the core of how you interface with the game: your class. It's essentially changing the lore after the fact. One example I use is of Doctor Who: the First Doctor was the grandfather to one of his companions; it was later changed to him being a Time Lord, an alien from the planet Gallifrey, but had kept this a secret from her and went by the name of 'grandfather'. Or in Buffy the Vampire Slayer, we typically know her to be kickass, but in the episode 'Normal Again' she's actually hallucinating all of this, and the real Buffy is in a psychiatric ward for schizophrenia. Creator Joss Whedon left that episode's ambiguity up in the air on purpose, much to the ire of the fanbase. Interestingly, the Buffyverse RPG plays quite well to things that aren't necessarily canon, like the Wishverse (an alternate world where Buffy doesn't get to Sunnydale in time) or Hellworld (where the apocalypse is brought about in Season 5). Think of it as a correction to what is canon, or what is now "the correct" information in-universe.

Favorite Videogame: The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion Best Story: Baldur's Gate Favorite Art Style: Valkyria Chronicles "I'll finish it someday": Paper Mario: The Thousand Year Door It Made you Cry: Valkyria Chronicles Best Combat: Warhammer: End Times - Vermintide Favorite Protagonist: Gorion's Ward of Baldur's Gate You Like it but everyone hates it: Final Fantasy X(...?) You Hate it but everyone likes it: God of War (2018) Favorite Horror game: Medievil, if that counts Favorite Fighting game: N/A Biggest Letdown: Sunset Overdrive "Back in the day Game": Spyro 2: Gateway to Glimmer Indie recomendation: Splitgate

Very rarely do I prefer playing at night; it's more because I'm doing so whilst I chat to my darling over Facebook (Total War's overworld campaign and Stellaris are my preferred games). I simply can't stay awake long enough to focus on and appreciate the game, as playing that long is just wasteful consumption. Having said that, I wholeheartedly appreciate all the reasons others do, especially atmosphere and availability.

That was Dean Takahashi of VentureBeat playing the demo, but he wasn't the game's reviewer and had stated he wasn't great at platform games (but still, to not be able to follow basic instructions deserves scrutiny for someone who professes to be an authority on vidya). If he was, the backlash would've been rightly deserved. As for IGN, they'd given it an 8.8/10. Interestingly enough, I find his investigative write-up on the Xbox 360's technical faults to be fascinating. That's the sort of journalism that's sorely lacking because games journalists don't know how to be journalists; most - and I include myself here - are glorified, paid bloggers. Even Jim Stephanie Sterling went by the credentials of working in "garm jarnalizm" rather than 'game journalism' because they didn't deem the title appropriate for what they did.

I've not seen much of it, but what I have seen is that it's unfaithful to its source material (OK, it's in the "silver timeline," an alternative prequel to the games), Master Chief's personality is far different (especially with taking his helm off; this is very much like how Sylvester Stallone got Judge Dredd wrong - Dredd's supposed to be hideous), and he also assaults a prisoner of war who cannot give consent, 343 Industries' Kiki Wolfkill justifying this as making him 'human', as if they're George R.R. Martin sans flat cap. It doesn't appear to be very well written from an action/drama point of view and its CG is noticeably bad. I hope the moments I've seen are clips taken out of context to make them look bad by salty Halo fans, but given this series was announced in 2013 (this is not to be confused with Halo 4: Forward Unto Dawn) it's no wonder it's been chopped and changed as much as it has. I really don't understand what made it so difficult to make. They have the games, novels, and the mistakes of the previous shows to build off the back of. Here's hoping Sony's efforts don't meet the same fate.

I liked Poliwhirl from what I remember; had a few squishy toys of him that were some of my favourites of the lot. Interestingly enough, Poliwag was the creator's favourite, and Poliwhirl was one of the more consistent Pokémon to appear in early marketing before Pikachu became the mascot (particularly in the Pokémon Adventures manga cover art).

Divinity: Original Sin II (I can't speak to the first game having these qualities) is exactly the sort of design I'd like to see in more video games. It's often called "the closest thing to D&D" because the developers have an approach of 'if you think you can do it, you can do it' and the world will react in such a way. And it's totally worth it for such ideas to be implemented. Dark Messiah of Might & Magic is another one of those games that rewards creativity with environmental actions. These actions are limited and not always necessary, but they're a nice touch when you find them. Not an open world as such but it responds logically to the things you do to the environment.

For the improvement of discourse in games because it encourages people reading and quoting the article? Absolutely. To draw in clicks? Absolutely not. It only takes one outlet to stick with scores to suck up all those eyeballs. I compare it to nuclear warhead disarmament: everyone agrees it's a good idea, but it requires everyone do it or else it makes you vulnerable. And who wants to be the first to sacrifice their readership? Ha, my thoughts exactly. 1-100 or decimal point scores do nothing for me. I spoke to my editor about my review criteria upon joining the paper, and my scoring is as follows: A technically bad game I didn't enjoy. A technically bad game I did enjoy / a technically good game I didn't enjoy. A technically good game I did enjoy / a technically bad game I greatly enjoyed. A technically good game I greatly enjoyed. God Tier. Since becoming 'pro' I've yet to assign a game a 5/5. It's clear, concise and it's easy enough to be consistent by. Plus my scores needn't be published: they're just as useful as an internal guide for my editor and I to discuss what I've written. It's not perfect, but it's the best system that takcles what Jim Stephanie Sterling called "hate out of ten" I've seen so far that isn't just getting rid of scores. See above with my system. Had I reviewed it at the time I would've given God of War (2018) a 2 with my system. That's still a good score because even though I couldn't stand playing it, I can't deny that it looks, sounds and plays well. The content of the review would only reflect that score being justified. I would choose not to review a sports game, but then I'm in a position where I that's an option. If I did review a sports game I'd take the piss, turning it into an attempt at a comedic piece. But let's say I have no choice but can use my system, I'd only be able to rate it a one or a two: either I enjoyed it or I didn't, because it's not going to be technically competent. Not for the kind of money they save recycling assets. I could easily do a retrospective on the Fallout series. I'm really into tabletop roleplaying games so I could go into how it was originally going to be a Generic Universal RolePlaying System (GURPS) engine video game, and how its creator Steve Jackson denied the rights because of the gratuitous violence featured and didn't want that associated with his brand. If I had to cover the history of the genres though, I'd be fine talking about how the games used to be Computer Roleplaying Games (CRPGs), and the backlash Bethesda received for turning them into first-person shooters (FPS). That's definitely a bit of history worth looking into. But my ideas don't really mean diddly squat until I sit down with a medium salted caramel & cream frappé, a notepad and a pen, and write. Once I zone out and let the hand do the work, there's no telling what will happen. Ah, interesting! If you recommend any particular titles I'd love to hear them (maybe not on this thread as it may derail things). I made a fatal error earlier dubbing it a fan project: it is, but it also contains excerpts from journalists and game devs. Dear me. So a bad example, my apologies for not doing the investigative journalistic leap of using Google to verify things before posting! 😅 It's my understanding Ready Player One is the sequel to Blood, Sweat and Pixels. Might be worth checking out if you like the former, but don't quote me on that.

I'll begin by saying I apologise if this sounds like I'm talking down to you, I don't want to insult anyone's intelligence when I get worked up over a subject I'm passionate and interested in shortly. It's a very long post, and this is about the closest I get to discussion/debate or just plain response on forums these days. I deem passion and interest to be two different things. People have a passion to write and that's the job description the recruiting manager/editor-in-chief have written up for the writer's contract; the interest in video games are secondary if it gets clicks. If you're passionate about and interested in both, more power to you. Take my posts on this forum for example; my past ~12 months have been cynical drivel most of the time because I'm passionate about posting, but I'm not really that interested in being involved in the topic. See also a lot of the spam users have complained about: people want to speak, but aren't interested in talking. This is the most animated I've been in about a year. I wholeheartedly agree, at least that's how things are to begin with and bless the hearts of those who still view it like that. Mark Twain is quoted as having said "find a job you enjoy doing, and you'll never have to work a day in your life." I'm the opposite more often than not. I remember getting my first review codes and being giddy over closed beta access, which unfortunately interfered with my ability to give as neutral a review as possible. Most "pro reviewer" outlets have review guidelines and ethics policies, and are held to a higher standard when it comes to disclosure. Granted, I'd take Johnny Forumgoer's review of Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain over anyone who went to the Konamitz Review Camp, having their work closely monitored by the developers and publisher so they didn't step out of line. That said, variety is the spice of life. Find reviewers whose tastes align with yours, whose ethical and review policies are open and consistent, and whose relationships with developers and publishers is transparent and well-documented (ie. interviews, press events, friendship). I should also point out I only consider myself a "pro" in the sense that it is my profession; evidently my writing quality and manner leave something to be desired. 😅 That's fascinating! I'd love to give them a read if you're able to share the links (if that's permitted in the rules, see Shagger's post above, even if it's just in DMs). I disagree. A lot of fan projects likely don't have the pull, resources or know-how to get interviews and inside information, and go off their own knowledge, community boards and wikis. Jason Schrier's Blood, Sweat and Pixels is a phenominal read, I dare say one of the best video game books that isn't by a developer. The CRPG Book on the other hand is a decent read but shouldn't really be considered essential reading for RPG fans. This takes us about around to that discussion of passion and interest. Anyone can have an interest in the Hell's Angels, but it took someone as gonzo as Hunter S. Thompson to go with them risking life and limb (at the end of his book being severely beaten and bloodied) to give a first-hand account of the last of the outlaws. All of that said, I wish pros like myself were only half as good as Thompson getting information and concrete answers from the developers. It's like drawing blood out of a stone, and I commend fans especially who can get that information despite that lack of resources.

Righto. The way I'd phrase that, which is difficult when one can't change the title (or be the original author xD) is "the game that most deserve more attention." Probably doesn't roll of the tongue as well, either. I still stand by my original thoughts however, including my recommendation of Warhammer: Mark of Chaos/Battle March, if anyone here likes a more tactical, scaled down RTS.

This is where we get into the muddied waters of critical versus cultural reception, because after all, what is a critic but someone with an opinion that gets published by a self-styled games journalism site? Critically Mad Max didn't do that well (the scores don't tell anywhere near as much as the content, but it got between 69-73% on Metacritic. Not great, not terrible), but I'd say it is just above having a cult following given it's the vehicular open world game people recommend hands down. I've never seen anyone who wasn't a self-styled critic recommend against playing Mad Max when the question arose, and I like to think I (used to) keep my finger on the pulse of popular game recommendations. Furthermore, I'm fully confident it'll continue to be recommended and played until someone else comes along to compete with it. The money's just sat there on the table. Looking at Steam reviews now though, I'm genuinely surprised it doesn't have Overwhelmingly Positive scores given how massively popular it's been. I suppose those who are enjoying the game are too busy farming for likes with reviews. 🤷‍♂️

I'm by no means a medical professional but there shouldn't be withdrawal symptoms. I'll move on because I think - I hope - this was just an ill worded phrase, otherwise please seek help. As to what I do... I either play it again if it's worth doing so, or I don't. I'm not quite sure I understand what there is to discuss.

I was fooled into thinking God of War (2018) was one of the "must play's" of its system, coming to the conclusion that if I knew what I did about the game I'd happily watch it in the form of a TV series, movie, or I'd give it a read in a graphic novel now I'm reading more of those. Good on Sony for using their intellectual properties for a medium that I think works hugely better for the stories they want to tell. It can't be any worse than Paramount's Halo... can it?

My problem with the discussion of 'underrated' is that people can't agree on what it means. Take Ghostrunner for instance: Metacritic has collated reviews between 76% to 81% on four systems; Opencritic says 81% (76% for its DLC, Project_Hel); it has Very Positive reviews on Steam (its DLC has reviews as low as 'Positive'.) I don't see how this game begins to qualify to be underrated. It's not an unknown entity, it had an animated store advert on Steam's front page (what more could a PC release ask for?), and made headlines upon its reveal and release. A game I'd nominate as being less-than-adequately rated is Warhammer: Mark of Chaos/Battle March, one of last pushes for console real-time strategy (RTS) games. Fantasy Warhammer with 2 or 3 armies depending on if you played MoC or BM, with great controls, tone, story, voice acting, script, and even some features that Total War could learn from (like embedding a leader into a unit). Given this was the precursor to Total War: Warhammer, I think it deserves a lot more credit retrospectively than it had at the time, but then we can only review games for what they are, not what they will be. I've measured the reviews of the game (55-65% on Metacritic) and find them wanting, as they have few specific complaints or ones that simply don't stand up to taking the time to learn (which the games give you plenty of.)

There's no right or wrong choices, races are mostly cosmetic and classes can be swapped out with different weapons and talent points. I seem to remember the Sorcerer was my favourite class (spellcasting summoner), but what joy I had of it was diminished by the game's netcode being really unresponsive. I've not played in a while so do forgive if things have changed a bit more considerably.

Fair warning to all, this is going to be a long (and somewhat bias) post, much like my first one about the games review process here. I doubt I can change anyone's minds, but I would hope my perspective provides some unique insights. In terms of...? Yes, of course we can. I won't lie, as a games reviewer myself, I'd struggle to review a lot of genres. I will say that many don't stay in their lane, but then - as you'll see below with Dean Takahashi - there may not be the best writer available to cover something. Citation needed. I know people will point to Dean Takahashi's Cuphead attempts (as a reminder, he was not its reviewer and does not primarily play platformers) or Polygon's Doom First Impression, and they were indeed attrocious, but beyond that you don't have much evidence to tar even half of games journalism with the same brush. That said, games journalism hasn't really ever had much in the way of integrity. The industry was very saavy to catch on to this early on: game magazines were nothing more than a front for marketers, and it took over a decade before you started seeing negative reviews that used scathing language because it wasn't just a puff piece. It wasn't until things like Jeff Gerstmann's firing from Gamespot over a negative Kane & Lynch review that the public started taking ethics in games journalism seriously. It's around that time that I'd say a lot of non-gaming stuff came in as print media was on its way out, and to compete game magazines (I use the word 'magazine' in the sense of a website too) had to fill up space with opinion editorials. This isn't to say it should always stay this way just because "that's how it was." Obviously there'll always be room for improvement, and it should be improved upon... if it lasts, which I honestly doubt. I feel the next generation of games coverage will only make the same mistakes as the last because it's what's expected. One final point for this particular question is one of the first posts I made on this forum, re Cyberpunk 2077 reviews and the review process. It talks about an ideal world, which games journalists don't - and cannot so long as it's as cutthroat as it is - live in. No, games journalists don't get a ton of money for their work. Freelancers usually have to build up a portfolio which they won't make any money on, and even then they may need to do a free trial (probation) before someone will buy an article. Since the blogger boom there's too many who do it for eXpOsUrE and it works, meaning the rest of us who want to be paid get told to blow off. No it isn't. Games journalism's decline in quality is for the most part for the following reasons: There's too many freelancers and too few in-house writers. [Redacted as it got too heated. My point is that it's simply cheaper for editors to write half-cocked reviews or get a freelancer to do it cheaply rather than pay an annual salary. This isn't always the case, thank goodness, but it's quite common especially the higher up the food chain you go.] Not enough time. A lot of this is on developers/publishers/PR agencies who don't send review copies within a respectable amount of time. A lot of it is down to backlog (again, see the above about being understaffed), and editors not properly prioritising articles and reviews. Filling. To say there's more games and delivering content, there's not a lot more to say about it. So we go back to what games journalism came from: dressing up advertisements for clicks. The cloak and dagger of PR does not help one iota, either. Citation needed. I get the frustration at articles, writers and sites that home in one one disagreeable aspect of the game and harp on about it for the entire article, but again, to tar the entire industry with that same brush just doesn't help with discussion. I won't lie, I would like to have seen the article but I imagine it would only be as venomous as your first post here. It just seems like you've come to a games jouralism site's forum to vent. I would certainly hope that if you continue to post here, you ease into the place as I did. In spite of all this, I would like to welcome you to VGR. Thanks for what has been cause for quite a hearty discussion so far.

It's hard for me to choose one, and @Yaramaki's impressive list beat me to games that should've been obvious with games like Fallout and Banjo-Kazooie, games I've batted for over the years. The only game that comes to mind for me, which is debatable as to whether it counts is Baldur's Gate. Originally a real-time with pause (RTwP) Computer Roleplaying Game (CRPG) based on Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Second Edition (AD&D 2E. We're going full on with the brackets today, aren't we?), Baldur's Gate III's combat is entirely turn-based and based on Dungeons & Dragons' Fifth Edition (D&D 5E). While not radically different per the title, it caused - and likely still causes - quite the storm in public debate about the game.

I think a question that would lead to more discussion is 'which console manufacturer has the best developers', to wit I say Sony hands down. I've deemed the latest feeding frenzy that is the 20s' acquisitions craze as Microsoft wanting intellectual properties and Sony wanting people. Before you read the following, I appreciate this is getting us somewhat off-topic so I invite mods to reprimand me for derailing conversation, should it be deemed so (especially after I've been so hardline on it recently). One needs only look at the properties Microsoft has bought up and the people behind them: Bethesda and Obsidian, for instance, are notoriously bad developers (even Obsidian are the first to admit they're the common problem with games like Alpha Protocol, Fallout: New Vegas and The Outer Worlds) but make critically acclaimed games that people want to buy. But then you look at how Microsoft assigns developers: 343 Industries is exclusively Halo (because of the significance of '343' in Halo lore); Ninja Theory, the makers of Hellblade: Senua's Sacrifice, are put on to do Bleeding Edge; RARE with Kinect games. If there's talent, Microsoft will mismanage it. Sony on the other hand buy studios who have worked with them and produce consistently good stuff, examples already given above. We can complain all we like about the handling of Destiny even post-Activision, but they know how to make one of the most functional games-as-a-disservice given the West's rocky MMO territory.

Spoilers for Valkyria Chronicles in the video beneath. Isara finally gets her wish to hear Rosie sing, which she hasn't done since her days as a barmaid. Even as I listen and type this up my heart's in my throat and I'm nearly welling up. This song is special to me in that it's in the first video game to cause me to cry. Also, a shameless plug of my review of Skylanders: Giants, where I sing a little bit along with one of the game's bosses. It's one of my favourite intros.

On the one hand I'd like to say Dark Souls so I'd stop being such a sore loser, but then I would really like to have discovered RPGs sooner. The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion would've been phenominal to me; I would never have thought that graphics and music would have advanced so much. Here's me thinking Disney's Hercules was the pinnacle of video game graphical fidelity, and 3D Movie Maker the height of animation.

I've been getting back into Paladins: Champions of the Realm (let's address the elephant in the room: yes, it's an Overwatch knock-off), and thankfully managed to get my old Founders' account back so I get to enjoy all the new champions they've added. I'm pleased to say it's gone back to its old closed beta roots: high time-to-kill (TTK), a no-nonsense progression system, and a decent enough amount of gold for those who aren't paying for the premium content. I'm not overly pleased about the presence of loot boxes, and having to pay to open the ones you have, but you can't have it all.

At first I thought this was such an easy choice: moral values. But then I think anyone who has the patience and intellect to learn multiple languages will also have the rationality to behave morally. As Mark Twain is quoted as saying, "travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry and narrow-mindedness." I fully concur with @StaceyPowers' assessment. It's something a lot of Britons could do with reflecting on. To quote a vox pop I saw on Tiktok, "being British is all about driving a German car to an Irish theme pub to drink Belgian beer then going home buying an Indian take-away to sit on a Swedish sofa infront of a Japanese television to watch American shows and all the while being suspicious of anything foreign”. To learn those languages and understand those people rather than consume the goods they manufacture would instill a lot of positive values.

It's a pity the Spyro didn't have any levels dedicated to swimming after Aquaria Towers in 2: Gateway to Glimmer. Other levels feature a lot of swimming, and two hub worlds require it, but past that it was just a carryover from the previous games. Honestly, Donkey Kong Country almost doesn't count because I've never seen anyone complain about them, and I have to agree; the controls and hit-boxes are tight, and rubbing along walls to find secret passages never got old. The music was phenominal too, but that can be said of just about any DK game.

Understood. Then again Resident Evil is one of those franchises that has a lot of entries outside of its numbered games, which are typically met with mixed/mildly positive reception, so I get their caution after being burnt a few times or not seeing the value in it. See how many remasters they've done in their past; it's been their modus operandi for at least a decade. The well will dry up one day, and when it does they'll continue to make more games. I appreciate someone would prefer that to be sooner rather than later, though.