Game News Bloodlines appears on sales charts

[Seven]

When you appologize you sound like the girl everyone thought I was. I agree with your previous stance of, " I have a right to call him/her on something stupid that he/she posted, so piss off." There are two types of people in this world: people who finish what they start, ect.

Who says I apologised?

Have you noticed whether or not you do damage to the others around your target if you hit them?

That's a definite yes, plus with the right combo you can send multiple enemies flying.

 

[Old Scratch]

I used to play this game online called Savage: The Battle for Newerth. 60% of the combat in the game was melee. I owned at it, so the melee controls in Bloodlines are quite comfortable, for me at least.

I'll take anything over just sitting there clicking the mouse button once and watching my guy kill something for me. Oddly, games like that rarely receive as much criticism for their simplicity.

Also, it's a little much to expect the combat in Bloodlines to be as focused as a game that does nothing but focus on melee combat, like Jedi Academy. It's like faulting JA because the role-playing in it isn't up to par. Or even better, bitching because the FPS combat isn't at the same level of quality as Half-Life 2. Yet for those reasons, they still shouldn't have put it so much in the fore-front near the end of the game. Bloodlines was a little schizo that way; it got confused about what type of game it was trying to be in spots.

On topic: They fucked themselves hard releasing the game right at the same time as so many hyped titles. My favorite genre is RPGs, but I had to stand there in the store debating whether to get HL2 or Bloodlines. It will probably only pick up steam once it's seen its first price reduction.

 

[Shevek]

I'll take anything over just sitting there clicking the mouse button once and watching my guy kill something for me. Oddly, games like that rarely receive as much criticism for their simplicity.

They dont recieve criticism for their simplicity because the player often has to think tactically rather than click crazily in hopes they kill something. It takes far more tactical though to play Jagged Alliance than it does Doom. What you are saying is that paintball takes more thought than chess and that just baffles me.

 

[Old Scratch]

I'll take anything over just sitting there clicking the mouse button once and watching my guy kill something for me. Oddly, games like that rarely receive as much criticism for their simplicity.

They dont recieve criticism for their simplicity because the player often has to think tactically rather than click crazily in hopes they kill something. It takes far more tactical though to play Jagged Alliance than it does Doom. What you are saying is that paintball takes more thought than chess and that just baffles me.

Nope, you just misunderstood me. In turn-based games you do have to think tactically, and your'e still controlling every action of your character(s). I'm talking about most real-time (or pseudo-RT) games that try to rely on stats. Diablo 2, KOTOR, Sacred, BG 2, NWN, DA, DS, etc. There is no tactical thinking in those games, it's just a game of click the nearest monster and watch what happens. That's fucking boring. Please don't try to tell me you really have to put much thought into doing anything combat-related in those games.

Bloodlines at least requires a good deal of player interaction and control. Looks more interesting too. There is no hoping you hit something in BL melee combat either, unless you're just too retarded, or sloth-like to turn the mouse a couple centimeters and face an enemy first. Of course they can defend against the damage, but you still hit.

 

[suibhne]

That's a definite yes, plus with the right combo you can send multiple enemies flying.

You can even send them flying into each other, knocking them all to the ground. A nice touch, though the melee scheme makes it a little hard to exert much directional control.

 

[Volourn]

"I'm talking about most real-time (or pseudo-RT) games that try to rely on stats. Diablo 2, KOTOR, Sacred, BG 2, NWN, DA, DS, etc. There is no tactical thinking in those games, it's just a game of click the nearest monster and watch what happens. That's fucking boring. Please don't try to tell me you really have to put much thought into doing anything combat-related in those games.

Bloodlines at least requires a good deal of player interaction and control. Looks more interesting too. There is no hoping you hit something in BL melee combat either, unless you're just too retarded, or sloth-like to turn the mouse a couple centimeters and face an enemy first. Of course they can defend against the damage, but you still hit."

Youa re an iidot. there is no, or very little thinking in BL's combat. None whatsoever. It's at the level of DS when it comes to combat thinking. Even KOTOR as "easy' as it was required more thinking and more involvment by the player. BG2 is easily way above it. You most definitely had to "think" while playing it. NWN has deeper more complex combat than ANY CRPG except TOEE. Haven't played DA, or Sacred. Haven't trried D2; but D1 had more thinking in its pinky fdinger than BL has in its own body.

The hilarious thing is I like the other aspects of BL - story, role-playing, atmosphere, characetr devlopment & the little things tm. - that the combat and control has not harmed my enjoyment of the game too much yet. That's a good thing. If you have to think to win at Bl's combat you are pathetic - at least the early game combat sicne I ahven't played the higher level areas yet.


That is all. :twisted:

 

[Roqua]

" NWN has deeper more complex combat than ANY CRPG except TOEE

Thats the most assinine statement I have ever heard in my life. I hearby vote you off the rpg island forevermore.

What about almost every TB rpg ever made. Lets see, both Buck Rogers, Gold Box SSI, Realms of Arkania trilogy(hardest and most tacticle combat of an rpg ever made in my opinion), DarkSun 1 +2, Fall Out 1 and 2, Ravenloft, Wizardry Series, Bard's Tale Series, and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on.

NWN was such a thoughtless piece of crap game that once I got sick of killing hoards and hoards of neverending rediculous easy monsters I urinated on the game CDs while they were still in my hard drive destroying my computer duing the process because I didn't want to play a computer contaminated with the filth called NWN.

The only thing that made NWN hard was inventory managenent and the fact the the overubandance of childishly easy combat that never ends has been proven to cause brain anurisms, tumers, and low birth wieght. Women who are pregnant or nursing should not smoke or play the ultra craptastic piece of shit that is NWN. Selling inventory items was harder than the combat, listening to gay ass NPCs prattle on was harder than the combat. Typing the three letters NWN while similtaniously holding down the caps botton is harder than any combat in NWN.

Some non TB games with harder combat than NWN: Every rpg ever made including Darklands, Eye of the Beholder trilogy, Quest for Glory 1-4, Wizards and Warriors, Gothic,Daggerfall, even Lionheart, etc ect, etc, ect, on and on and on. (Note: Action games that retards call RPGs like Diablo and DS are not included).

 

[Volourn]

"Buck Rogers, Gold Box SSI, Realms of Arkania trilogy(hardest and most tacticle combat of an rpg ever made in my opinion), DarkSun 1 +2, Fall Out 1 and 2, Ravenloft, Wizardry Series, Bard's Tale Series"

Haha. Youa re full of shit. I never discussed hardness. However, amongst those games you write only Fo1&2 can challeneg NWN in either of those regards if not more so.


"Some non TB games with harder combat than NWN: Every rpg ever made including Darklands, Eye of the Beholder trilogy, Quest for Glory 1-4, Wizards and Warriors, Gothic,Daggerfall, even Lionheart, etc ect, etc, ect, on and on and on. (Note: Action games that retards call RPGs like Diablo and DS are not included).

A. Irrevant.

B. No.

 

[Roqua]

I'm not quite sure I follow your reply but okay:

A) Peanutbutter

B) Where

What could deep and complex refer too? Clicking on the next goblin after you killed the last one with one hit. Or maybe hitting the health potion hotbotton when your life goes down? No, I know, hitting the teleport stone at that crutial moment. Or is it sending a henchman to disarm one of the 8 billion traps. Or looting 5 thousand bbarrells? Or maybe decideing to go N, S, E, or W to clear all the equally easy, unchallenging, and retardedly simple but way over repetitive areas.

"Haha. Youa re full of shit. I never discussed hardness. However, amongst those games you write only Fo1&2 can challeneg NWN in either of those regards if not more so. "

Thats about as true as my penis being bigger than John Holmes'. Realms of Arkania has the best combat engine I've ever seen, including depness and complexity. And Buck Rogers is still one of the best rpgs out there if your looking for depth and complexity. I could go on and on, but if you really think NWN has deep and complex combat I won't try to change your opinion, but I will give you my sympathy and pity.

 

[Volourn]

Ok.

 

[Old Scratch]

Youa re an iidot. there is no, or very little thinking in BL's combat. None whatsoever. It's at the level of DS when it comes to combat thinking. Even KOTOR as "easy' as it was required more thinking and more involvment by the player. BG2 is easily way above it. You most definitely had to "think" while playing it. NWN has deeper more complex combat than ANY CRPG except TOEE. Haven't played DA, or Sacred. Haven't trried D2; but D1 had more thinking in its pinky fdinger than BL has in its own body.

I never claimed there was Trollourn. My point was that it at least requires a bit of physical interaction, since in most RPGs with real-time combat, the thinking part usually gets thrown out the window. Not that you would notice; I'm sure clicking the mouse on moving objects on a screen requires every ounce of intelligence you've got at your disposal. :D

KOTOR required jack shit. Almost every battle could be won by telling your guys to do a standard attack, with plenty of time to go get a drink or take a leak till they were done. The tactical options were completely limited when you did feel like using them to mix things up anyway. It sure as hell didn't require more involvement from the player than Bloodlines. As you might say...why do you lie?

Same for NWN. It's combat was at least better than KOTOR's and maybe a little more involving than Diablo 2 or something similar, but I wouldn't call it "deep" or engaging, especially if you were playing a tank or even a cleric.

Again, I wasn't speaking in terms of how much thought you had to put into battles, but the action in Bloodlines does require more involvement from the player than in Diablo 2 as well.

That is all. :twisted:

Now apologize for your foolish assumptions.

EDIT: The TB combat in Buck Rogers was great. I had forgotten all about that game.

 

[Roqua]

You know what your talking about Old Scratch,

The combat, and game was great, from party creation to the end game. The spaceshuip battles, the tough, tough levels (how many times have any of you had to restart a hole "dungeon" because your guys are too beat up near the end to beat the main fight?), the mechanics of how different armour and weapons really made a huge difference. I generally think the AD&D rules are retarded but Buck Rogers made them shine. That was game making at its best. You really had to plan ahead and play smart to beat it.

The only better games ever made in my opinion were Realms of Arkania trilogy, which got everything right and every game is a work of art, and Darklands, which almost got everything right but desided to have RT w/ pause combat, which always sucks big donkey balls. FO 1 and 2 are just behind it, but gain some points because I was able to be a pimp in FO2.

If you played Buck Rogers you probably remember when SSI came out with the AD&D action game called like Al-Quadin or something like that. That game had more "Rpg elements" than most "rpgs" coming out now-a-days but that shit didn't fly back then. If it wasn't a real rpg you couldn't market it that way and there were no retarded action game fans that think they like rpgs trying to tell everyone the gay ass crap devs try and pawn off as rpgs are really rpgs.

 

[Otaku_Hanzo]

Well, it's definitely nice to see some others who enjoyed the Buck Rogers RPGs. I think both of you would like Hard Nova. It's one of my favorite Sci-Fi CRPGs of all time. If you haven't checked it out, please do so. I don't think you'll regret it.

 

[Old Scratch]

You know what your talking about Old Scratch,

The combat, and game was great, from party creation to the end game. The spaceshuip battles, the tough, tough levels (how many times have any of you had to restart a hole "dungeon" because your guys are too beat up near the end to beat the main fight?), the mechanics of how different armour and weapons really made a huge difference. I generally think the AD&D rules are retarded but Buck Rogers made them shine. That was game making at its best. You really had to plan ahead and play smart to beat it.

I actually played it on the Sega Genesis, it was the same game I think we're talking about though; Countdown To Doomsday? The party creation was one of my favorite things, the huge variety of races and setups. I hadn't really seen that in a game before. It was actually the first game that really made me appreciate turn-based combat so much.

The only better games ever made in my opinion were Realms of Arkania trilogy, which got everything right and every game is a work of art, and Darklands, which almost got everything right but desided to have RT w/ pause combat, which always sucks big donkey balls. FO 1 and 2 are just behind it, but gain some points because I was able to be a pimp in FO2.

I never played Darklands, though from what I've heard of the setting, it sounds like it would've been something I'd have enjoyed. Haven't heard of Realms of Arkania. FO1 and 2 are still my favorite games ever.

If you played Buck Rogers you probably remember when SSI came out with the AD&D action game called like Al-Quadin or something like that. That game had more "Rpg elements" than most "rpgs" coming out now-a-days but that shit didn't fly back then. If it wasn't a real rpg you couldn't market it that way and there were no retarded action game fans that think they like rpgs trying to tell everyone the gay ass crap devs try and pawn off as rpgs are really rpgs.

I do remember the Al-Qadim setting, having read through the source books a few times back when I still played D&D, but I didn't realize there was a computer game version.

Amen on the last part. I always attribute the shift to the rise in popularity of Diablo--a game which gained a large portion of it's notoriety and sales just because of the popularity of the company that made it. Hell, that's the only reason I bought it. The less then stellar sales of games like PS:T, and the Fallouts probably helped, but that's still no reason for the RPG genre to be almost completely absorbed into the action genre like it is now.

A lot developers will drop comments that turn-based games don't sell, or that a game has to be loaded with lots of action to sell, but that's bullshit. Like anyone looking for an RPG picks up a box and says, "Oh damn, this doesn't sound action-packed, I'm not buying it!" A person like that probably wasn't planning on getting anything RPG related anyway.

The problem is making the other elements sound appealing enough. Look at the hype surrounding games like Fable, or KOTOR. Having hung around on the boards for each of those respective games before their release, the biggest draw amongst all the hype for people seemed to be the potential freedom they claimed to have, the non-linearity of the world, and the freedom to make your character act how you chose. Stuff that older RPGs had been doing for a long time now (and far better at that). I rarely, if ever, heard anyone on the Fable boards talk about how excited they were about the combat aspect of the game. Then people are disappointed to find on it's release, that all of it was BS, and it's basically just another hack & slash in sheeps clothing with limited interaction with the gameworld.

Now there are a lot of people disappointed by how much of an action-fest Bloodlines becomes towards the end. It didn't bother me too much, but it could of been a much higher praised game had it just stuck to what it did best. I don't think I've heard from anyone who says the beginning stages of Bloodlines suck, it's always the action heavy end sections they complain about.

When will developers wake the fuck up and realize action does not automatically equal good sales? Sometimes people just want a well-crafted RPG to get into. A complex set of skills to help tailor their character just the way they want, moral and social freedom, and a captivating story. The trick is letting everyone know what it is you're offering them; getting the message out and advertising properly.

These days, I've gotten to the point where I just hope that a game has at least a decent amount of role-playing to it, and that the combat in it isn't a complete snoozefest.

Damn, what a rant that turned into. :shock:

Well, it's definitely nice to see some others who enjoyed the Buck Rogers RPGs. I think both of you would like Hard Nova. It's one of my favorite Sci-Fi CRPGs of all time. If you haven't checked it out, please do so. I don't think you'll regret it.

I'll check it out Otaku.

 

[Roqua]

Thanks for the link Otaku Hanzo, I'll try to get it to work in dosbox.

I was talking about Matrix Cubed and Coutdown, both are great Old Scrath. I think Matrix Cubed is better though. I haven't played Countdown is so long it is hard too compare fairly.

 

[Fez]

I preferred the Amiga version of Hard Nova, it was easier to get running too. Plus you get to use things like state saving and other emulator advantages.

 

[Otaku_Hanzo]

I preferred the Amiga version of Hard Nova, it was easier to get running too. Plus you get to use things like state saving and other emulator advantages.

Know where I can get a copy of this at? I have an original copy of the PC version, but it's on 5.25" floppies and I won't be able to install it until I get my legacy system up and running. I downloaded the one on Underdogs and it works fine with Dosbox, but I would love to have the emulator option. Much easier to deal with.

 

[Fez]

Here is a link to download Hard Nova for the Amiga. If you need any other Amiga related emulator stuff just ask, I can usually find what I am looking for.

 

[Otaku_Hanzo]

Thanks for the link. As far as other stuff goes, I know where to get an Amiga emulator. That's not a problem for me. I just never bothered with Amiga emulation. Only games I ever really emulate are a couple of SNES titles and I also use ePSXe to play my Playstation games on my computer since they tend to look alot better. Oh, and I also use a SegaCD emulator to play Popful Mail now and then. Love that game. I tried to run some of my 3DO games with an emulator, but never could get them to run. Guess I just have to try and get ahold of a used one somewhere. I miss being able to play Killing Time.

 

[DemonKing]

It could be that Bloodlines' audience is somewhat limited by the 18+/R rating its got, meaning that a lot of kiddies won't be getting it for XMAS.

I haven't finished Bloodlines yet (just got to Chinatown), but I have to say that this is the first game where profanity/sexual innuendo level is just right and feels realistic rather than gratuitous.

EDIT: I'm talking about the dialog - the BOOBIEs are definately gratutious!

Saying that, I can understand why it is rated for adults/mature gamers only.

 

[dojoteef]

I miss being able to play Killing Time.

Aren't you playing that game by posting here at the Codex :wink:.

 

[Otaku_Hanzo]

I miss being able to play Killing Time.

Aren't you playing that game by posting here at the Codex :wink:.

Maybe killing time, but not Killing Time.