James

[font="Palatino Linotype"]This quake has also caused some significant disruptions with airlines here in Australia. A couple of our domestic low-cost airlines fly regularly to several Japanese cities and a relatively large number of people have been travelling from Tokyo to northern Australia over the last few days. I came home from far north Queensland just yesterday and just noticed the large volume of people arriving. It's definitely been a horrible experience for everyone, particularly in and around the Sendai area. Best wishes to everybody in Japan - and I urge everyone to donate what you can for the relief efforts.[/font]

[font="Palatino Linotype"]Piro's comments about Zelda made me think about how else the Zelda design could be changed. I'm actually very much in favour of Zelda being fairly radically changed in terms of gameplay design - the series, for me, is starting to feel quite stale (I'm really hoping Skyward Sword will help to alleviate that). I am thinking that it would be cool to keep Zelda in the third person, but perhaps to change the perspective slightly. In my mind's eye, I am thinking about a slightly over-the-shoulder perspective (think, say...Mass Effect 2, but perhaps with the camera pulled back a little further). And, as with Skyward Sword, the game would feature 1:1 sword control. At present, 3D Zelda games tend to have a very similar format whereby you have an overworld dotted with exploratory areas (i.e. towns/outposts) and combat/puzzle-solving areas (i.e. dungeons). There can be some blurriness between these two distinctions, but generally speaking, Zelda games clearly define these two realms as being separate (and the overworld itself is sort of something in between, with the token sprinkling of enemies here and there). What I would like to see is a world that is far more seamless than that, where the dividing line between "outpost" and "dungeon" is largely non-existent. The kind of world I'm thinking about is actually a lot closer to something like Grand Theft Auto. If you strip away the actual content and just look at the world itself, what you have is a large world where the "levels" (i.e. "dungeons") are directly integrated into the "overworld" itself. So you don't tend to have all of these very separate elements that are joined together by a vast and relatively-uneventful space - instead, many kinds of events are dotted throughout the world itself. The overworld is not just a transit hub - it is actually the space where the puzzle solving and combat occurs. Another game to reference from is Half-Life 2. In H-L2, you are definitely being funneled through a fairly linear experience. However, all of your individual challenges are occurring within the same consistent game world at all times - you aren't in a central "hub" from which there are distinct branches to beat. It's not that two dimensional (or at least it doesn't appear to be, thanks to great design). To add to that, I don't like the idea that you need to be limited to very specific dungeons and occasional side-quests (which, generally, aren't all that consequential). I'd rather a system closer to western RPGs like Guild Wars or Mass Effect, where you can follow a single thread of "missions" but where you can also take on assignments of varying scope - some of which can have quite a big impact but are still optional. It would also be interesting to add some deeper roleplaying elements to the experience, too. I'm not talking about leveling up or anything, but more about some simulation elements - for example, it might be fun to breed improved horses at Lon Lon Ranch or to take part in deeper conversations with NPCs. And that's not to mention added plot depth and perhaps even some excellent scripted moments (I think scripting would work really well in Zelda, in particular).[/font]

[quote name='Sangome' timestamp='1299543926' post='705538'] [color="#9932CC"][font="Microsoft Sans Serif"]I'd say the learning curve isn't too bad, but it could just be easy for me since I've played for years now. That said, they've kind of revamped the way you gain experience [I think less EXP as you go on? I'm not entirely sure], but there are ways around that. As for prior knowledge, I'd say you're good to go. The game is tailored for newbies and vets alike; it starts in an entirely new region, far away from all the others, with a complete roster of new Pokemon [to where you don't encounter any in battles until you beat the game]. Fans of Gen I should be pleased in particular, as the game takes a lot of cues from the original generation, such as the character designs, music, etc. And lastly, as far as previous games go, they've really polished it up. Locales are in 3D, the aesthetics are polished and feel more up to date, that sort of thing. It really feels like a new generation of games.[/font][/color] [/quote] [font=palatino linotype]Awesome, thanks. That info is just what I was looking for. :) Now I just need to work out what version to get. I have no idea where to start with that, haha.[/font]

[font="Palatino Linotype"]I've been thinking about picking Black or White, but I haven't played Pokemon since... Red. As in, the original on Game Boy. Haha. So, I guess I'm wondering what the learning curve is like. Do you guys think I will be able to easily pick this game up without all that accumulated Pokemon knowledge? Given that it's Nintendo, I'm sure it'll be fine, but I figure I'll ask since you guys all seem to have quite a lot of experience with this series.[/font]

[quote name='Nerdsy' timestamp='1298661435' post='705258'] http://filmdrunk.uproxx.com/2011/02/a-tim-eric-movie-with-john-c-reilly [color=deeppink]I hope this is true because I am excite.[/color] [/quote] [font=palatino linotype]Hm, sounds pretty awesome. I am probably the only person who thinks this, but I would love to see an entire series starring Carol and Mr. Henderson - I think it could be even better than The Office.[/font]

[font="Palatino Linotype"]I'd definitely have to mention WoW, the principle reason being that I really don't have any interest in paying a subscription for a video game. But also, I got into Guild Wars very early on and, for me, it's just a far more interesting game. I also think it's a lot more beautiful (not so much in a raw graphics sense, but in an artistic sense). One show I really loathe, actually, is Friends - yet everyone seems to love it so much. I've only seen a couple of episodes, but it just strikes me as really inane. One joke from the show still haunts me: "Ouch!! I got ice in my eye!" "Quick, put some ice on it!" >_>; Yeah. So, never quite got into that one.[/font]

[quote name='Allamorph' timestamp='1298608675' post='705240'] [FONT=Calibri]I pray for your soul.[/FONT] [/quote] [font=palatino linotype]I'd rather you pray for an early DVD release.[/font]

[font="Palatino Linotype"]I'm waiting for Tim & Eric Season 5 to appear on DVD...how long can it take?? :([/font]

[font="Palatino Linotype"]I'm still playing Mass Effect 2 - such a brilliant game! I think it's fast becoming my favourite of this generation (at least on the Xbox 360). Once I finish it, I am thinking about getting Donkey Kong Country Returns or maybe Kirby's Epic Yarn. I can't decide. I'm also keen to try Goldeneye on Wii - it looks awesome and the reviews seem pretty good too. Any thoughts on these options? :)[/font]

[font="Palatino Linotype"]I've just sorted this out for Knuckles' Girl and I'm awaiting her reply via email or PM. So no worries. :)[/font]

[font="Palatino Linotype"]I will look into this for you and get it fixed. :)[/font]

[quote name='Lyndy' timestamp='1297822915' post='705026'] [color="#556B2F"][size="3"][font="Times New Roman"]I was bored and photoshopped this image and showed it in chat... but everyone ignored me, so I thought I would show it here. :I *thinks it would be okay in this thread*[/font][/size][/color] [img]http://i245.photobucket.com/albums/gg53/lyndy05/disapprovingbieber.jpg[/img] [size="5"][font="Arial Black"]The Bieber disapproves. [/font][/size] [/quote] [font=palatino linotype]Yes, it would be okay in this thread. I'm sure Futer would approve if he were here.[/font]

[quote name='Nerdsy' timestamp='1297745384' post='705008'] [color=deeppink] Didn't really answer your question, just wanted to talk about it, heh.[/color] [/quote] [font=palatino linotype]No worries - it was very interesting. :) Your discussion about strategy is what I was trying to explain earlier when I talked about battlefield strategy versus "menu strategy". What I'm interested to see is how different the actual story and dialogue is if I have a "new" Shepherd (either male or female). Given that the game seems to be based quite a bit around my play history (with fairly regular references to ME1), I'm curious to see how the plot outcomes change. I've read that there are some quite big changes in this area, depending on whether you play as your original Shepherd or a new version.[/font]

[font="Palatino Linotype"]Hi Linkukun - I just moved this topic to the White Noise forum, where movie discussions are held. :) Good topic idea, by the way. Your quote is from [b]Dirty Harry[/b]. Now, let's see...here's my quote: [b]"Follow the white rabbit."[/b] [/font]

[font="Palatino Linotype"]Fair enough. :) So I have a question. I started Mass Effect 2 with my existing character from the first game - that's been truly awesome and I've loved seeing how my choices in the first game have affected the second. I think it's one of the most innovative features of ME2. But I'm wondering if the game is substantially different when you start a new character (I'm thinking maybe a female and a totally different class). Is that worthwhile at all?[/font]

[quote]In ME2 you could easily just swap out characters. if you wanted a tough fighter use Grunt or Garrus or Jacob, If you wanted a versitile fighter use Morridon, or Tali or Thane orMiranda or Legion. If you want a Biotics powerhouse you have Jack or Sumara. their skills varied a bit but essentially they all did the same thing in combat. [/quote] [font=palatino linotype]I think that there's probably a bit less variance than in the first game, but you have to take into account the fact that a) they each have different weapon load outs, which makes a substantial difference depending on the enemy type and b) loyalty can play a substantial factor in terms of unlocking new biotic powers. I suppose that it's really six of one, half a dozen of the other. I would just say that Mass Effect 2 has a slightly different approach to combat, but it's no less strategic than the first game in my view - I think it's just that the strategic elements are different (i.e. battlefield-focused rather than "setup"-focused).[/font] [quote]as far as strategy on the battlefield is concerned, I don't really think either game had much... the teamates are always doing whatever they please unless you watch them like a hawk in ME. Enemys preform the same ways in almost every situation so if you see an enemy you ran into before, you will probably be prepared for them ahead of time.[/quote] [font=palatino linotype]True, but I think Mass Effect 2 is geared so that any strategy used is battlefield-focused. I think that this is partly evidenced by the fact that the game places weapon load out areas in the field itself. In terms of teammates, I find that I let them do as they please maybe 60% of the time. I often use way points and I [i]very[/i] regularly control their use of biotics. In fact, 90% of the time I'm the one controlling their biotic powers. So I'm pretty hands-on in that sense.[/font] [quote]the system in ME2 more resembles leveling up of weaponry rather than modding them like in ME.[/quote] [font=palatino linotype]We agree there. There's definitely a linear "level up" type of approach in ME2. I don't mind this though; as I said earlier, I'm very much neutral about the difference here. I could go with either system (modding or leveling up).[/font] [quote]you can't do well in that game without using cover correctly implementing the abilities of teammates and paying attention to your health. but these things are all streamlined with a nice cover system[/quote] [font=palatino linotype]Right - you can't do well without managing all of those things. I think that's where the strategy is self-evident. As for being streamlined with cover...I actually think cover adds a lot to the game. It's something the original game actually lacked, to the point where when I compare the two...the original seems almost archaic in this regard. Cover is a little bit over-played in Mass Effect 2, but it works so much to the game's benefit that I don't really mind. Also cover is not the be-all and end-all. There are numerous times (especially in the later game) where cover is valuable, but certainly no guarantee of success. There are plenty of enemies who aggressively try to root you out of wherever you are parked, which can make quite a difference.[/font] [quote]I just like it better because The RPG aspect made it feel different, where as ME2 feels more like a worse Gears of War to me.[/quote] [font=palatino linotype]Yeah that's fair enough. I like the RPG aspect too, but for me... ME2 gets the balance right. I'm glad it's [i]not[/i] Gears of War. For me it feels a lot like Resident Evil 5, actually. Haha.[/font] [quote]Noooo! count on it being like two... once you make things simple, you never go back to making things complex again. [/quote] [font=palatino linotype]I wouldn't bet on that. It's not necessarily about simple versus complex. Mass Effect 2 contains many complexities, particularly in terms of dialogue options and Paragon/Renegade features (these areas being more complex than the original, I think). But I think where Mass Effect 2 succeeds is in the way it takes these complexities and implements them so elegantly. The simplicity is not so much in the content, but in the implementation of that content. So it's very possible that Mass Effect 3 will incorporate more options in terms of weapon customization for example - what matters, though, is how efficiently those features are implemented. With Mass Effect 2, I think it's clear that BioWare learned a lot of lessons from the first game.[/font]

[quote name='CaNz' timestamp='1297092320' post='704755'] I agree, The Like button really shows how little people care about the articles message. Anyways if people can't ignore advertisements in this day and age you probably can't go outside. This is just another way to make a few more dollars off aadds from companies, but If you really aren't feeling secure because of a couple adds randomly poping up in your wall you gotta ease up a little. It's not like this new form of advertisment is going to be any more effective than the mind control they try to apply with every other form of advertisement they use. [/quote] [font=palatino linotype]That is true, but this topic does remind me how glad I am that OtakuBoards is ad-free. There are very few corners of the Internet now that can actually say that. I don't mind ads, so long as they aren't pop-ups (or those crawlers that get in your way when you're reading...or the ones that start blaring music without being prompted, haha). "Passive" ads are fine though.[/font]

[quote]Biotics do make the game easier, but as for team selection and using the powers I think its less important. All the abilities are linked, sou a biotics user in 2 doesnt have to worry about leveling up multiple skills. if you want an offensive one choose warp, a defense choose push or singularity. There is nothing wrong with that, but if you tried a simple strategy like that you would have one power every thirty seconds. the Adept role could be used if you could protect it... the midway classes had had significance. Technicians (used to help with opening stuff to get free material... now.. they just have a power ability that works almost the same as biotics.) were smart to include and Biotics were able to establish dominance in shorter fights. [/quote] [font=palatino linotype]I guess that what I find is that each character begins with a couple of key biotic powers which you can then expand as they level up. I am finding that I have a tendency to choose squad member based on a) their biotic abilities and b) their weapon load out. You could definitely just use warp and push or singularity, but where's the fun in that? I love to combine multiple biotic powers strategically. I also find that I'm using way points a lot more than in the first game. I think this is because the AI seems a little smarter and combining this with the use of biotics seems to work really well.[/font] [quote]Another thing I miss is the different weapons and armor. purchasing high quality specialty weapons or a balanced arsenal was up to you. You could pick who gets what gun and the better weapon might influence how you used them. Like, I bought tough heavy armor for Rex first. so that I could have a good tank. this bit of planning made my first few fights a breeze.[/quote] [font=palatino linotype]I agree that the first game had way more customization in this regard. You're right there. I guess that I don't mind the relative limitations on weapons in Mass Effect 2 for two reasons: first, I like that some weapons can only belong to some characters (it gives characters are more distinctive feel and I think it also makes character selection more strategic) and secondly, I like that all ammo is essentially the same unless you use a biotic power for incendiary rounds or whatever. In the original game I didn't actually mind all the weapon and ammo options, but by the same token, if I had a choice...I'd prefer to emphasize strategy on the battlefield rather than in a menu screen beforehand. I like doing [i]some[/i] prep for missions, but not a lot. That's where I sometimes get bored with very complex RPGs, admittedly. One thing I did like in the original was that you could have a couple of upgrades per weapon and per armor. You can still do it, but it's been simplified a great deal now. I don't prefer one system or the other though - I'm indifferent on this. I like both.[/font] [quote]Also, no weapon upgrades. [/quote] [font=palatino linotype]There are a ton of weapon upgrades in Mass Effect 2, except that they function differently to the first game. I can see where you're coming from, in that there's a lack of per-weapon customization...but depending on what you find and how you use research, it's definitely still possible to upgrade weaponry. You mentioned all of the different ammo types - that was the kind of thing that annoyed me about the first game. I felt at times that there were almost [i]too many[/i] options. A different ammo type for each type of enemy...I don't know, it wasn't really my thing. That's where the first game started to bore me a little. I can understand though that it's valuable for people who want to squeeze every inch out of the experience. But as I said earlier, I'd rather spend less time worrying about endless setup options and more time employing direct battlefield strategy.[/font] [quote]Basically all the fun I was having came from strategies I came up with during the game, stuff that wasn't hand fed to me like the cover system, health recharge, and easy abilities. The weapon upgrades are all mostly increased damage.. and I can use any method I want to take out enemies without much of a change. As you can see... I like the intricacies far better than streamlined gameplay. [/quote] [font=palatino linotype]Yeah I think that's the crux of it. We have slightly different tastes in this regard. I don't agree though that the cover system, health recharge and "easy" abilities are examples of hand feeding though. I think these are direct improvements that the previous game lacked to a fault. The cover system adds an important dynamic to battles that just wasn't there before. And the health recharge feature feels like a godsend compared to the constant need for Omni-gel before (I much prefer the way health is deployed in ME2). When I think back to the first game, I actually felt that combat was a lot less varied - and that's despite all the different ammo types and such. So I managed to play the original without taking huge amounts of time to modify my load outs. I guess that I like Mass Effect 2's variety of enemies and battle scenarios a little bit more. I like that the emphasis is on the physical action rather than the combat planning (while still allowing for a degree of preparation in advance). I see these changes as taking about some of the unnecessary busywork and replacing it with genuine action. But yeah, I guess that gets to the core of why we have different views on the game. :) I'm wondering if they will try to reach some sort of middle-ground with Mass Effect 3. It'll be very interesting to see what happens there.[/font]

[quote name='CaNz' timestamp='1297092473' post='704756'] Like, maybe If your angel is selected you get to defeat(provide the finishing blow to) him yourself, winning cool points in the story? [/quote] [font=palatino linotype]Hm, not a bad idea. I like that. :) I am also thinking of maybe making some sort of avatar or icon for people who create winning angels. Maybe a little NERV emblem, like the kind an officer would wear on their shoulder. Something like that might be fun. [b]Edit:[/b] By the way, my plan at the moment is that the story [i]will[/i] have chapters, but I'm thinking that each "chapter" in the story will be divided by the arrival of a new Angel. So I'm sure there will be other sub-plots that will occur in between those way points, but I figure that the arrival of each Angel will present a good series of dividing lines throughout the RPG. I also have some other ideas as to how we can keep track of things effectively, without people getting too lost during the story. I've been inspired by Mass Effect 2 on that point. ;) [/font]