What are you playing?

[Fazor]

I just saw the review, yesterday at work, for Mafia II on the XBox. I didn't get time to check it all out, including videos, so I'm not sure, but it does sound good, and they did make fun of it in Penny Arcade, so I think I might want it. In the meantime I'm playing the CTRL-V Game.

They have a demo available on XBL. My friend highly recommended it (though his was the PC version, as he's not much of a console gamer). I've downloaded the demo on XBox, but haven't actually played it yet.

I'm also tempted to pick up a used copy of Assassin's Creed 2; I'm eager to see how the 3rd one ends up, as the multi-player aspect sounds like it will either be exceptionally fun, or won't work at all. But I haven't played any of the series. The original was oft panned for being repetitive and boring, so that turned me off to it. The sequel supposedly fixed all that, but Ive just never gotten around to playing it.

[Spoons]

I never tried the first one, but I bought Assassin's Creed 2 some time around the start of the year. I like it - it flows very nicely. I was surprised by how much fun I thought it was, and how fluid all the movements were. That said, I've still got a long way to go to finish that one. I started it and then had to start a new XBox profile, so I lost all my progress, which probably wasn't really that far through it anyway at that stage. I just started it again recently, and I'm keen to knock that one over before I look at getting this third one (your mentioning it is the first I've heard of it, actually).

I'll have to download that demo some time then. Two weeks and I'll be back home at my city unit, where I'll have a direct line from the wall to the XBox, so downloading demos and just playing online without lag will be a possibility again. (I've been having to run it through the laptop, which itself runs on a wireless connection - it's totally unsuitable for online gaming.)

[Paul Beardsley]

I'm keen to play Assassin's Creed 2 (when I have time) rather than 1 or 3 because 2 is set in Venice, Florence and Rome. As I can't afford another holiday at any of those places any time soon, the game seems like the next best thing.

[Fazor]

(your mentioning it is the first I've heard of it, actually).

The multi-player is set up so it's (up to) 8 players. Each player is assigned another player that he/she must assassinate. Which means there's a player that's also out to assassinate you. Kills are a matter of getting close enough and then executing a one-button "kill move", so it's not a combat game. The fluid environment escapes/chases are still there, and certain types of kills are worth more points than others, based on the difficulty of the take-down.

The question will be, will it be balanced enough to actually promote sneakiness and cunning, or will a player that's willing to just run around killing things have the advantage? What about "campers" that just hide in some nook far from everything? And I'm not sure how the death mechanic works; are you respawned quickly and assigned a new mark? Or do you have to wait for the round to end?

Like I said; it sounds different enough to be intriguing (to me anyway), but it also sounds like what it's trying to pull off is very risky. It could either being a totally new and very enjoyable MP experience, or it could be broken and worthless. We'll see (US Release is some time in November, IIRC. Not sure if the UK/Euro release is the same time.)

[Spoons]

I'm keen to play Assassin's Creed 2 (when I have time) rather than 1 or 3 because 2 is set in Venice, Florence and Rome. As I can't afford another holiday at any of those places any time soon, the game seems like the next best thing.

Yes, the setting is quite beautiful, I must say. I haven't holidayed there, but one of my friends, who recommended it to me, said it was great seeing buildings he'd seen not that long before on his holiday. I'm not sure they're that cool with letting you climb all over their stuff there either in the physical world.

The multi-player is set up so it's (up to) 8 players. Each player is assigned another player that he/she must assassinate. Which means there's a player that's also out to assassinate you. Kills are a matter of getting close enough and then executing a one-button "kill move", so it's not a combat game. The fluid environment escapes/chases are still there, and certain types of kills are worth more points than others, based on the difficulty of the take-down.

The question will be, will it be balanced enough to actually promote sneakiness and cunning, or will a player that's willing to just run around killing things have the advantage? What about "campers" that just hide in some nook far from everything? And I'm not sure how the death mechanic works; are you respawned quickly and assigned a new mark? Or do you have to wait for the round to end?

Like I said; it sounds different enough to be intriguing (to me anyway), but it also sounds like what it's trying to pull off is very risky. It could either being a totally new and very enjoyable MP experience, or it could be broken and worthless. We'll see (US Release is some time in November, IIRC. Not sure if the UK/Euro release is the same time.)

That does sound like a good concept! I hope it works ok. I really dislike games like Halo, just charge and shoot types. Dragon Rising is a good multiplayer game too, though it's very hard and you have to stick to the plans you make within your team. Rainbow 6: Vegas 1 & 2 were doozies.

I think part of what I really hate about Halo is the types that play it. A lot of very childish types - it just doesn't end up being much fun. This Assassins Creed 3 sounds like the sort of game that type might not like, which is good.

[Fazor]

I think part of what I really hate about Halo is the types that play it. A lot of very childish types - it just doesn't end up being much fun. This Assassins Creed 3 sounds like the sort of game that type might not like, which is good.

Ugh. I've hated Halo and the Halo community since day one. I think the worst part was when the first Halo was released to the original xBox, and all the "Halo Kiddies" proclaimed how awesome and revolutionary it was. As an old-school gamer dating back to the Atari and Commadore days, it bugged me. Halo was not (and is not) revolutionary. It may have been the first really successful FPS on console (though I'd argue that Goldeneye64 was). But at the time of Halo's xBox release, the game as an FPS was on par with PC shooters 6 years older, and had nothing on the current PC shooters of the day.

And one could say the same thing about every single Halo release since. There hasn't been one original idea added. "Driveable vehicles?!?!" I remember doing that in the 90's (Starseige series had that, I believe. Among others.)

"King of the hill!"

Quake mods have been doing that since the early 90's.

And what really really "gets my goat" is that these console FPS'ers have some weird sense of superiority over PC gamers in the same genre. Give me a mouse and a keyboard and put me up against you on your little duel analogue controller and lets see who comes out on top. In fact, there's been a handful of franchises that are multi-platform who have tried to incorporate a shared online experience (ie, PC games and console gamers playing in the same matches through shared servers), and all those plans have been scrapped because PC games have such an overwhelming edge.

Blah! (See you got me started!) Halo is a mediocre franchise that for some inexplicable reason gained "the best franchise EVER!" status. I'll admit that the games have improved. But they've never been original or groundbreaking. Not even "Reach", which I believe comes out next week?

Anyone is entitled to like the games. We all get to have our opinions. But for the love of god please stop claiming that Halo was/is the game that shaped the FPS genre. It didn't!

[Spoons]

Yep, that pretty nicely sums up my thoughts on Halo. Goldeneye - now that was a classic, on the Nintendo 64! 4 buddies on one console - great fun. Would've been so much better with the big tv screens of today too.

The workmate who got me onto XBox Live loves Halo, because he it savagely good at it, but he still hates the halo-babies. And yes, PC is much better for gaming - the reason I don't play much PC games anymore is because when I was a student all my cash went on the fast life and I had trouble saving to keep my PC up to date. This meant that I'd occasionally buy a game, only to find it wouldn't work on my computer, even though my PC met the req'd specs. I got sick of the drama and switched to XBox, where at least you know the game should work as designed, even if it's design isn't as good as a PC game.

It's a pity they don't make XBox games for keyboard & mouse use - I remember playing Vice City on the PC at a friends house and was blown away by how much better it was. I'd forgotten how much better aiming and free form movement is with the mouse.

[Fazor]

I don't game much on PC anymore for the same reason; I found with spending est. $300 on an XBox, I can play any "cutting-edge" game that comes out and not have to worry about performance. PC I enjoy more, but can't afford to upgrade. And even if I do upgrade, the "cutting edge" games next year won't run well on it anyway, without another upgrade.

As for control, I'd say it's 50/50. I've never played a sports game that controls well with the keyboard/mouse. Adventure/Platform games I like better on console also. But as you said, anything with free-form camera control / aiming is a million times better with a mouse.

FWIW, last I heard MS and Sony aren't releasing keyboard/mouse perifrials for the same reason that they've scrapped PC/Console united online play; they feel it creates too big of a rift between those with a controller and those with the mouse/keyboard. Though you think that'd be the perfect business model, as it would force anyone who wants to compete to buy another $60-80 piece of hardware. *shrug*

[HenrikOlsen]

Has anyone noticed that numbers after titles do not attract the same disdain in video games as they do in films?

... as long as the new release is made by the same who made the previous.

If produced by new people they very often build on the wrong things from the old game.
Silent Hill: Homecoming would have been a perfect example if it hadn't signaled the departure from the originals by changing to a subtitle rather than a number.

[Fazor]

Silent Hill: Homecoming would have been a perfect example if it hadn't signaled the departure from the originals by changing to a subtitle rather than a number.

Speaking of that, I just saw a reference to it on some video game review place (can't remember if it was a magazine, online, or tv) and it was actually a favorable reference. Which made me recall your earlier criticism of it. If it's any consolation, I tend to trust your opinion more than the other.

I'm finding more and more that the people reviewing games are nearly (or more than) ten years younger than myself, and thus from a whole different generation of gamer. And it seems to me that many in that younger generation -- the ones that missed out on Atari or NES, or even SNES and Genesis, and the birth of PC gaming -- have very low standards for what constitutes a good game. Maybe I just don't agree with thier taste, the same way my parents like their music and hate the stuff I listen to (mostly).

[Doodler]

... as long as the new release is made by the same who made the previous.

If produced by new people they very often build on the wrong things from the old game.
Silent Hill: Homecoming would have been a perfect example if it hadn't signaled the departure from the originals by changing to a subtitle rather than a number.

Not always. Among the cult classics is Star Control and Star Control 2. Ask any serious fan of the series, and 2 was the last game. There is no Star Control 3, it never existed.

[Van Rijn]

Not always. Among the cult classics is Star Control and Star Control 2. Ask any serious fan of the series, and 2 was the last game. There is no Star Control 3, it never existed.

I had very mixed feelings about Star Control 3, and I consider Star Control 2 one of the best computer games I've ever played. SC3 was disappointing, but I liked some aspects of the story. The puppet style in SC3 was jarring, though I got used it. The default for the Doog ships was a game breaker - it made battles far too easy, but it was possible to adjust things to make it a bit more challenging. The big problem for me was the adrupt ending. I remember (and this was a long time ago) not quite believing the game had ended. I had the impression they had run out of money or time, and had to cut the end story.

[Spoons]

FWIW, last I heard MS and Sony aren't releasing keyboard/mouse perifrials for the same reason that they've scrapped PC/Console united online play; they feel it creates too big of a rift between those with a controller and those with the mouse/keyboard. Though you think that'd be the perfect business model, as it would force anyone who wants to compete to buy another $60-80 piece of hardware. *shrug*

I just thought of one other reason why they might not be releasing mouse controllers. When you have a mouse for moving the camera around, it gives you the ability to move what's on the screen faster than the graphics card can handle without getting all choppy. I'm not sure whether it was a consideration, ut it would be an issue - it's show up the shortcomings of the graphics card. A bud of mine went out and got the best graphics card available in the store, went home and was moving the mouse erratically (no, reread that, I said erratically) just to test it out, and found a slight stutter, so he went and got a second one. It takes huge power to remove that completely.

With a controller you simply can't move as fast, so you can't make that issue so obvious.

But yes, sports games and driving games are the other reason for why I went XBox.

[HenrikOlsen]

Not always. Among the cult classics is Star Control and Star Control 2. Ask any serious fan of the series, and 2 was the last game. There is no Star Control 3, it never existed.

Which actually makes my point, as Star Control 3 was developed by Legend Entertainment who were hired for the job by the distributors of the series, whereas 1 and 2 were done by Toys for Bob.

And Yes, UQM is a wonderful game, I'm quite mad that I can't get it installed on my FreeBSD laptop at the moment because the sources aren't available right now.

[NickW]

With a controller you simply can't move as fast, so you can't make that issue so obvious.

My brother spends more time in Modern Warfare 2 then anything else and the problem I have playing against him is he cranks the sensitivity all the way up. You can turn unbelievable fast in that game on the PS3.

[Spoons]

Ah, yeah, the sensitivity function occurred to me after posting that, but I imagined it would still be less than if you shake a mouse violently back & forth. Is the PS3 graphics card superior to the XBox 360 one though? I imagine so - I saw some new game my housemate was playing and it looked insanely good.

[Fazor]

I think the PS3, hardware wise, surpasses the XBox all around. Yet even if they were the same price, I think I'd still select the xbox. Blu-ray is not a draw for me, as my tv is only ED and not HD anyway. Most of the best games are multi-platform; but as far as platform specific games, I like the XBox's exclusives better than PS3's.

. . . and I hate to say [that, because] I'm certianly not an MS fanboy. In fact, the reason I waited so long to get an XBox was 100% based on my dislike of Microsoft. But the games won out and I bought one eventually anyway.

In games news; I completed "Point Lookout" DLC today, and am now working on "The Pitt". [fallout3]

[edits]

[Spoons]

We seem to share the same thoughts on this, Fazor. 'cept I've never played Fallout 3.

I originally bought the my XBox because it had a cricket game (don't hit me - I started playing them because as a kid I had a bad temper and no patience, so I started playing them to help me build up my patience - it has helped, I believe) I wanted. I'd bought it for the PC, got home and it didn't work. I was really annoyed, and cashed up, so I went straight back out and got the 360, which had the game.

[NickW]

I picked the PS3 because of the huge difference in hardware versus it and the 360. I love blue ray, and not just for movies. The blu-ray functionality is what helps some of the PS3 games look so fantastic. The ability to store huge amounts of data (50 gigs duel layer) makes a big differance in the type of games publishers are willing to put out because they are not really bound by the amount of data the media can hold. MGS4 is a great example of how good blu-ray can help.

Of course. I will admit I am a Sony fanboy. But I am also willing to admit there are some games that I have played on the 360 that I would prefer to play on it rather then the PS3.

[Fazor]

Okay, so I slashed my way through 'The Pit', and disentigrated the alien heads as I blasted through 'Mothership Zeta', leaving only 'Broken Steel' left to go. In anticipation, I'm picking up Assassin's Creed II when we go out for dinner here in a minute.

[HenrikOlsen]

I'm back to playing X³: Terran Conflict.

[Fazor]

I'm back to playing X³: Terran Conflict.

I've heard of it, but not much about it.

[HenrikOlsen]

The immediate game is a single player first person shooter in space.

I've seen it described as single player Eve Online and I can see why as they have many superficial similarities.
Among the differences is:

• the economy is only you and the NPC's. It's resource & factory based, with prices depending on availability and NPC traders are competing with the player for the good trades.
• there's less of the jarring of suspension of disbelief you by necessity get in MMORG's when quests reset so others can do them. The world has actual development over time, i.e. if you do a quest to buy, transport and place a factory for an NPC, that factory will then be a permanent feature of the game, if you fail to protect an NPC factory from pirate attacks, that factory won't respawn but will rather be gone. Your actions have long term consequences.
• because it's first person instead of EO's third person AI combat, player skill matters a lot so it is entirely possible to take out stronger opponents by being a better pilot that the AI
• skills aren't learned by your character through XP, but rather by yourself through actually getting better at flying your craft
• instead of only one, you can command many vessels at the same time both for combat, trade and mining
• projectiles have limited velocity and missiles have limited guidance and/or maneuverability so in a fast/nimble craft, dodging bullets is a viable tactic

[Moose]

It also has a pretty intimidating learning curve for the uninitiated. The game isn't hard, but what passes for a tutorial is thin and largely unhelpful.

On the plus side, there are mods to add in ships from Star Wars, Babylon 5, and Wing Commander Privateer.

[Doodler]

Which actually makes my point, as Star Control 3 was developed by Legend Entertainment who were hired for the job by the distributors of the series, whereas 1 and 2 were done by Toys for Bob.

Ah ha! Ok, now it makes sense, even if it is still tragic

[Fazor]

Assassin's creed seems *okay* so far. The controls aren't as fluid as I had imagined from all the raving reviews, but they're fairly tight. Same with the combat controls. And the characters are modeled great for the majority of the game, but anytime they're talking during one of the many 'cut scenes', the faces just look weird. Like everyone's wearing a thick rubber mask rather than a real face. It stands out enough to be a little jarring for me.

There was just a line of dialogue that was so funny it actually make me "laugh out loud", which doesn't happen often. I don't want to give it away though because it's funnier if it's a surprise.

Yet, if all of what I typed makes it sound like I don't really like the game, that's the wrong impression. It's oddly addictive; and I have the same problem I have with fallout3, in that I'll get on to play for just a few minutes, you know, just to do that one quest/objective. Then I'll say, "well, might as well do this next one too", then rinse-repeat until I've wasted over an hour playing.

[Spoons]

Yeah, that's what I found with the game. It's one where you can start playing it for a few minutes before bed, then next thing it's 2 in the morning.

I saw Mafia II yesterday, the good housemate bought it for his PS3. I like what I see. I'll be doing some budgeting to see whether I can afford to get it on payday, otherwise the following month. That gives me between 2 and 6 weeks to finish Red Dead Redemption, which I hadn't played in quite some time, until last Saturday.

[HenrikOlsen]

Still mainly playing X³: Terran Conflict and in a fit of insanity just ordered the X SuperBox despite already having paid for the last 2 of the 5 games in it.
I like a Games company that's willing to take their 10 and 11 year old games and upgrade them to run well on Vista and Windows 7 for a rerelease.

Currently fetching NASA's free sim game Moonbase Alpha on Steam, anyone tried playing that?
Update, it's timed repairs and stuff, for some reason I'm experiencing a several frames lag in the mouse, which makes it too frustrating to be any fun.
Second update, configuring the NVidia driver to prerender 0 frames for the game made the lag acceptable, looks like it's definitely a game where teamwork is going to be a major part of enjoyment, which means it's not really for me Might have been fun though.

[Fazor]

I just installed Sid Meiers' Civ IV (Because I wanted the new 'Civ V' but I downloaded the demo and this laptop couldn't handle it.) I'm having fun with it so far; I've been wanting a good strategy game--and with the books I've been reading, I'm also in the "birth of mankind -- first civilizations" mind-set. So it's the perfect fit. Or, at least a pretty good one.

[Paul Beardsley]

Well, after part-exchanging a bunch of old PS2 and Wii games, we got a pre-owned copy of Assassin's Creed II for £7.

So far we've had a quick look at it.

The bad language annoys me. Okay, I'm not a prude, but it's so gratuitous. I'm not really that keen on the framing narrative, for that matter. Adventures in recognisable historical locations do not mean we have to have pseudo time travel nonsense.

And Florence doesn't feel right. I know my way around the real city, and I don't think the streets have changed that much, and I don't think there were so many flights of steps - as I recall the streets are quite level.

This is of course just my personal taste. Others may prefer a slightly more "dramatic" layout, which is fine.