Stormtrooper x BoS helmet is beautiful
| |
Anonymous comments allowed.
105 comments displayed.
#5
-
borderlineparanoid ONLINE (01/11/2016) [-] I'm sure even Battlefront players think fallout is better.
#104 to #5
-
ponypenetrator (7 hours ago) [-] ive never played fallout 4, but after playing battlefront id say fallout is better.
#99 to #80
-
aidnyan (7 hours ago) [-] when you put it like that, you're actually retarded.
Fallout 4: dumbed-down RPG to the point of being an FPS with perks and quests, kinda like Borderlands, and it feels like you've already done everything by level 30
Battlefront: absolutely beautiful in terms of graphics and sound(not something i usually play games for but it is definitely true in this case), the multiplayer is easy to get into if you're willing to put the time into it, fun to play with mates as anon said, and also not even close to a CoD reskin unless you mean that the main focus of the game is to shoot the bad guy, which is pretty much what all games with guns are. Saying a game is "cod reskin garbage" is such a weak argument that i wont even start talking about it unless youre willing to read my ramblings
Fallout 4: dumbed-down RPG to the point of being an FPS with perks and quests, kinda like Borderlands, and it feels like you've already done everything by level 30
Battlefront: absolutely beautiful in terms of graphics and sound(not something i usually play games for but it is definitely true in this case), the multiplayer is easy to get into if you're willing to put the time into it, fun to play with mates as anon said, and also not even close to a CoD reskin unless you mean that the main focus of the game is to shoot the bad guy, which is pretty much what all games with guns are. Saying a game is "cod reskin garbage" is such a weak argument that i wont even start talking about it unless youre willing to read my ramblings
#101 to #99
-
labree (7 hours ago) [-] i never said fallout 4 didnt have flaws
battlefront has far too many, specifically that it is a cod clone with powerups which cod has mind you
it was also literally **** compared to the previous games
the literal only reason to play the new battlefront is that it has better graphics, other then that it is far worse then the previous games.
battlefront has far too many, specifically that it is a cod clone with powerups which cod has mind you
it was also literally **** compared to the previous games
the literal only reason to play the new battlefront is that it has better graphics, other then that it is far worse then the previous games.
#107 to #101
-
aidnyan (7 hours ago) [-] god damn if you think you can just say its a cod reskin and be done with it then **** off.
The powerups in cod are given at certain numbers of kills, while theyre either always with you in SWBF or random around the map(which is an inherently flawed system but different from cod nevertheless). the entire loadout system of the two games is different as well, and what cod game was it that had the gamemodes where you played as the main characters from the series?? oh wait.
while BF2 was a better game, there are things in the new battlefront that are preferable, such as: people play the game(whoa playerbase matters in a multiplayer shooter? **** me right) the gamemodes are more involved in whats actually going on instead of "go stand on the point and keep them form standing on the point" for the most part, except for the gamemodes that ARE the same gamemodes.
The powerups in cod are given at certain numbers of kills, while theyre either always with you in SWBF or random around the map(which is an inherently flawed system but different from cod nevertheless). the entire loadout system of the two games is different as well, and what cod game was it that had the gamemodes where you played as the main characters from the series?? oh wait.
while BF2 was a better game, there are things in the new battlefront that are preferable, such as: people play the game(whoa playerbase matters in a multiplayer shooter? **** me right) the gamemodes are more involved in whats actually going on instead of "go stand on the point and keep them form standing on the point" for the most part, except for the gamemodes that ARE the same gamemodes.
#110 to #108
-
aidnyan (6 hours ago) [-] cod: 2 gun system primary/secondary, small maps that are essentially a series of boxes, loadout of limited items and/or(in the newer ones) perks, with no sort of coop(unless they added it in the newer ones i havent played) but having a singleplayer campaign
bettlefront: 1 primary weapon, choice of 2 cards which could give anything from a sidearm to a jetpack(unlike cod's perks which give things like faster speed or whatever), large and open maps(for the most part), more diverse gamemodes, mesh of vehicles and infantry(though not well-executed), a few different types of coop while not having a singleplayer
good enough??
bettlefront: 1 primary weapon, choice of 2 cards which could give anything from a sidearm to a jetpack(unlike cod's perks which give things like faster speed or whatever), large and open maps(for the most part), more diverse gamemodes, mesh of vehicles and infantry(though not well-executed), a few different types of coop while not having a singleplayer
good enough??
#112 to #110
-
labree (6 hours ago) [-] The general gameplay still runs the same path of "Run around and kill what you see, occasionally do goals"
theres very little if any strategy to either of the games other then "be faster then your enemy"
sure there are minor tweaks as in the card system which was incredibly ******** implemented but they dont change the general gameplay by much.
theres very little if any strategy to either of the games other then "be faster then your enemy"
sure there are minor tweaks as in the card system which was incredibly ******** implemented but they dont change the general gameplay by much.
#115 to #112
-
spinthatrecord ONLINE (6 hours ago) [-] EVERY FPS is run around kill what you see and occasionally do goals
#116 to #115
-
labree (6 hours ago) [-] no they really arent. nowhere near to the extent of battlefront atleast.
try playing insurgency just running around killing everything.
try playing one of the most widely known and best fps every, counter strike just running around killing everything
not knowing the map and general strategies literally gets you killed before you can get more then a couple kills.
try playing insurgency just running around killing everything.
try playing one of the most widely known and best fps every, counter strike just running around killing everything
not knowing the map and general strategies literally gets you killed before you can get more then a couple kills.
#119 to #116
-
spinthatrecord ONLINE (6 hours ago) [-] been playing Counter strike for about 10 years on and off now
#124 to #121
-
spinthatrecord ONLINE (6 hours ago) [-] that's cool, never been too into the esports side of it. just play it cause I've enjoyed it you know.
#117 to #116
-
spinthatrecord ONLINE (6 hours ago) [-] I havn't played insurgency since it was a re-skinned CS mod that even used dust (was fun though) Counter Strike is running around killing people (or sitting on a counter with an awp) and planting a bomb or rescuing hostages which is an objective mate.
#122 to #120
-
spinthatrecord ONLINE (6 hours ago) [-] I know what counter strike is man. just the way you described is pretty much just a generic way of describing the fps genre.
#128 to #125
-
spinthatrecord ONLINE (6 hours ago) [-] the problem is CS is a tacticle shooter the onlys ones getting into that are Rainbow Six, Insurgency and Socom back in the Socom 2 days. Battlefront is more of that arena style in the way of battlefield, CoD, Doom and Quake. just hop in and blast things you know?
#131 to #130
-
spinthatrecord ONLINE (6 hours ago) [-] mmhmm. It's why If I do play Battlefront etc I usually have them muted with music playing in the background. Shame it's starting to happen to CS as well really should get into insurgency. How active is the playerbase for insurgency these days?
#133 to #132
-
spinthatrecord ONLINE (6 hours ago) [-] if you're gonna play CS stick to CSS to be honest. Also that's good to here I'll have to pick it up when I get a chance
#114 to #112
-
aidnyan (6 hours ago) [-] true enough, but most major shooters could be summed up by "run around and kill what you see, occasionally doing goals." That was what the original battlefront games were as well. If you're looking for a tactical type of thing, go play R6S, where the devs are actually known for making that sort of game and did it well, or **** csgo csgo, where team strats become necessary after a certain point
#118 to #114
-
labree (6 hours ago) [-] the issue is that battlefront and cod LITERALLY are running around and killing stuff.
its not any boiling down or summing up. they are running around and kill stuff.
the original battlefront games did have strategy, the maps were huge as **** and running around literally would get you killed unless you were a jedi, and even then it wasnt that hard to get killed. if you didnt know the maps even remotely you wouldnt know anything about where the goals were whereas in battlefront i literally roamed around and little and was able to find the goals.
its not any boiling down or summing up. they are running around and kill stuff.
the original battlefront games did have strategy, the maps were huge as **** and running around literally would get you killed unless you were a jedi, and even then it wasnt that hard to get killed. if you didnt know the maps even remotely you wouldnt know anything about where the goals were whereas in battlefront i literally roamed around and little and was able to find the goals.
#126 to #118
-
aidnyan (6 hours ago) [-] the original battlefronts maps were so big running around was less dangerous than it is in the newer one, and what sort of strategy are you talking about? it was literally just stand on the point for a few seconds and make sure your team had more points and that you were ultimately killing more people, since, if you dont remember, the games were determined based off of the side that lost all of its reinforcements first, while in battlefront ea the objective actually matters, which makes it different from cod as well, since most cod gamemodes boil down to kills as well. the new bf makes it easy to run around and kill people, but if youre not at least killing the people who are trying to do objective, youre going to lose
#129 to #126
-
labree (6 hours ago) [-] running around was far more dangerous, you could sniped from just about anywhere.
the strategy was that almost everybody in those games pushed the objectives and pushed for them. people would try NOT to get killed BECAUSE of the fact that you could run out of reinforcements
the strategy was that almost everybody in those games pushed the objectives and pushed for them. people would try NOT to get killed BECAUSE of the fact that you could run out of reinforcements
#72 to #40
-
innocentbabies (9 hours ago) [-]
Where the hell is everyone getting this stuff from? Everybody has their own GOTY award. Witcher 3 did win IGN's GOTY award.
#38 to #3
-
boogyshadow (12 hours ago) [-] fallout 4 is garbage as a game, but to pick the lesser evil, Fallout 4 > battlefront.
#46 to #39
-
boogyshadow (11 hours ago) [-] Definately not, favorite game of all time is fallout: new vegas
#47 to #46
-
boogyshadow (11 hours ago) [-] I just feel fallout 4 is a fraction of an image of what it once was.
#59 to #47
-
hysteriaward (10 hours ago) [-] people said the same about fallout 3/NV after falling in love with 1 and 2, embrace the change
#84 to #59
-
jonandstuff ONLINE (8 hours ago) [-] The thing is though, fallout 3 although bitched about when it first came out due to it being so different in perspective and **** , was what it was advertised to be. Don't get me wrong, I agree people do complain like bitches, always. It's like when a band releases a new album....However.
Fallout 4 didn't feel like an RPG for me, you weren't making your role, you were given one role. You are a man who started off in the old world, who was a veteran, a father, and had a loving wife, his goal is to get his son back, a noble goal. We would all do the same in his shoes, I know I would, and he is a good man for that. So basically from the start, it makes you a good guy, or at least a neutral good (If that is what you call it, correct me if I'm wrong.). You never really have the choice to be a bad guy, sure you might be a man willing to do anything to save his son, but you are never truly pushed to a point where you question if you are the good guy. Where you have to accept that you have to become a monster to save your son, or stick to your old world principles and push on, making it harder for yourself to do so.
All in all, it's a great game, good enough graphics for me, great world, huge, lots of hidden areas, but it lacked the witty fallout charm that I was hoping bethesda learnt from obsidian. Which is my fault. However, I disliked the voiced PC and how dialogue was so, fake choice like. You could be a dick, sarcastic, or goody two shoes and they basically always said the same thing after one line of unique dialogue. I also disliked the new skill system, and how it didn't create dialogue options. The game is a diamond and I love it, but that being said it is a clouded one. This is just one Jon's opinion, I rarely share my opinions on fj due to how hate bandwagons start. If you disagree, I accept that, but don't ass rape the red thumb just because my opinion is different and poorly worded I assume. I just got back from work and haven't slept in two days.
Fallout 4 didn't feel like an RPG for me, you weren't making your role, you were given one role. You are a man who started off in the old world, who was a veteran, a father, and had a loving wife, his goal is to get his son back, a noble goal. We would all do the same in his shoes, I know I would, and he is a good man for that. So basically from the start, it makes you a good guy, or at least a neutral good (If that is what you call it, correct me if I'm wrong.). You never really have the choice to be a bad guy, sure you might be a man willing to do anything to save his son, but you are never truly pushed to a point where you question if you are the good guy. Where you have to accept that you have to become a monster to save your son, or stick to your old world principles and push on, making it harder for yourself to do so.
All in all, it's a great game, good enough graphics for me, great world, huge, lots of hidden areas, but it lacked the witty fallout charm that I was hoping bethesda learnt from obsidian. Which is my fault. However, I disliked the voiced PC and how dialogue was so, fake choice like. You could be a dick, sarcastic, or goody two shoes and they basically always said the same thing after one line of unique dialogue. I also disliked the new skill system, and how it didn't create dialogue options. The game is a diamond and I love it, but that being said it is a clouded one. This is just one Jon's opinion, I rarely share my opinions on fj due to how hate bandwagons start. If you disagree, I accept that, but don't ass rape the red thumb just because my opinion is different and poorly worded I assume. I just got back from work and haven't slept in two days.
#134 to #111
-
jonandstuff ONLINE (59 minutes ago) [-] You have a point, however I personally think the purest form of the rpg is one where you can choose your path, at the very least a basic Good, Neutral, Evil, path. Where choices matter.
I might be wrong, but I felt as though it was like my choices mattered little, hell during my first play through during the great amazing battle, nobody attacked me, they all just ignored me, because I was playing all the sides. I hadn't realized I had to choose one yet, I went into the game knowing nothing, not even a single commercial, so it kind of made what could have been an amazing battle into a quick decision "Who do I betray?" And then it turns out, since nobody survived from the sides I betrayed, everyone still loved me.
I won't complain about how my companions controlled how I played, because making them hate me was something I disliked, or how one of my settlements was being raped every thirty RL minutes even though I jacked up the def on each one, but the lack of control really made me feel like I wasn't playing a fallout game. All in all though, modding community will bring me back. I just hope the story mods will be cool even though the protagonist has a voice now, so I expect a lot of the same lines from the vanilla game being re used.
I might be wrong, but I felt as though it was like my choices mattered little, hell during my first play through during the great amazing battle, nobody attacked me, they all just ignored me, because I was playing all the sides. I hadn't realized I had to choose one yet, I went into the game knowing nothing, not even a single commercial, so it kind of made what could have been an amazing battle into a quick decision "Who do I betray?" And then it turns out, since nobody survived from the sides I betrayed, everyone still loved me.
I won't complain about how my companions controlled how I played, because making them hate me was something I disliked, or how one of my settlements was being raped every thirty RL minutes even though I jacked up the def on each one, but the lack of control really made me feel like I wasn't playing a fallout game. All in all though, modding community will bring me back. I just hope the story mods will be cool even though the protagonist has a voice now, so I expect a lot of the same lines from the vanilla game being re used.
#86 to #59
-
nathanbiggs (8 hours ago) [-] Why should anyone embrace the continued casualization that Bethesda pushes? All it does is make the quality of the game worse and lowers the amount of time you can invest in the game. I put nearly 300 hours into the base game of New Vegas because there was so much to do, I'm at 80 hours in 4 and I just can't find anything else to bide my time with.
#57 to #47
-
themarineelite (10 hours ago) [-] You are not alone. They dumbed it down SOOOOO much. A lot of the factions didn't have any charm to them.
#9
-
lwlarcopolio (01/11/2016) [-] Flame wars? Fallout is objectivly better. Battlefront is a bad game, and most of it's content is DLC. Fallout wasn't perfect of course, but Battlefront is absolute garbage. Just because it looks nice, doesn't mean it is a good game
#95 to #94
-
rarityrarityrarity (7 hours ago) [-] I don't pay attention to any new releases but that game looks much better graphics-wise than anything I've seen.
#98 to #97
-
rarityrarityrarity (7 hours ago) [-] none of those games are on the same level of graphics as BF
#109 to #102
-
rarityrarityrarity (6 hours ago) [-] I just base it off how realistic they look. Fallout 4 for example looks pretty cartoony.
#53 to #35
-
icefried (11 hours ago) [-] Every RPG quest ever has been fetch, kill, talk to or escort. Much like the "seven basic plots" that underline every story ever written.
Where the Witcher 3 shines and what makes it the most refined witcher experience is the way it makes you feel like a witcher.
First off, there are no escort quests. In the almost unhealthy amount of time i've invested in this game in the past week (only got it recently because i had to replace my GPU) i have seen no traditional escort quests.
If you get an NPC companion for the duration of the quest, they will be invulnerable and will deal a lot of damage. (There are some exceptions of course, though i could only name one and you're not supposed to escort the NPC as much as you are saving them from a battle).
Second, if you say the words "i have to go slay an arch griffin" the same way you say "i have to go to work tomorrow" then maybe the game isn't for you. And that's fine. Like i said, different strokes for different folks. The franchise has always been about monster hunting since the first book came out. Witchers are monster slayers for hire, it not only makes sense that you should spend most of your time fighting monsters but it would make absolutely no sense to make a Witcher game in which the focus is mostly shifted away from monsters.
Traveling from village to village looking for work, occasionally getting yourself caught up in schemes that Geralt wants no part of, meeting old friends, making new enemies, preparing for battles and making decisions is what makes the Witcher what it is. Every side quest has it's own little story and is done in a way which is very reminiscent of the style and format from the books.
The writing itself is beautifully designed where almost every dialogue option seems to flow into the other. It's not Dostoevsky by any means, but it's not meant to be.
The characters are varied and each has their own motive or agenda that they want to achieve, and very often clash with characters with different motives in a plausible and interesting way. This makes all the intrigue and complex geopolitical issues all the more realistic.
The Witcher sense is a weak part of the game unfortunately, especially in the early game where whenever you're supposed to use it, it seems like you're just wandering around aimlessly until you spot something red then you follow it to the next red thing and viola! An Ekimara.
It does get a little better over time as you subconsciously incorporate it into the whole "feeling like a witcher" experience where when you're given a scene to investigate you could deduce the monster or assailant alongside Geralt which really puts you into this supernatural detective vibe.
Also at some point they introduced metroidvania-esque items and mechanics, but unfortunately they never did anything with them which was a disappointment to me.
The Witcher 3 perhaps isn't a game that can be immediately enjoyed (yes, i know it takes roughly the length of an episode of Half Life 2 to reach the Bloody Baron, it's a bloody long game) if you're a newcomer to the series, which is understandable. There are a ton of characters you'd have to go to the glossary to know who they are, the political situation is confusing and the gameplay seems very bare-bones when you first set out.
I get that, i really do. But i don't say it lightly when i say it's one of the best games ever made. It accomplished almost everything it set out to do, which is not something you can say about every game.
If you want to give the game another chance here's what i recommend. Sit down and have a long session, finish BB, get to Novigrad (sidequests optional) and at least do a couple stages of the main quest there.
If at that point you don't feel like continuing you can safely delete the game and never touch it again.
The session should be pretty long, as i fear shorter sessions wouldn't be enough to engross fully.
iavealotmoretosaybutidontwanttoboreyouandimoutofspace
Where the Witcher 3 shines and what makes it the most refined witcher experience is the way it makes you feel like a witcher.
First off, there are no escort quests. In the almost unhealthy amount of time i've invested in this game in the past week (only got it recently because i had to replace my GPU) i have seen no traditional escort quests.
If you get an NPC companion for the duration of the quest, they will be invulnerable and will deal a lot of damage. (There are some exceptions of course, though i could only name one and you're not supposed to escort the NPC as much as you are saving them from a battle).
Second, if you say the words "i have to go slay an arch griffin" the same way you say "i have to go to work tomorrow" then maybe the game isn't for you. And that's fine. Like i said, different strokes for different folks. The franchise has always been about monster hunting since the first book came out. Witchers are monster slayers for hire, it not only makes sense that you should spend most of your time fighting monsters but it would make absolutely no sense to make a Witcher game in which the focus is mostly shifted away from monsters.
Traveling from village to village looking for work, occasionally getting yourself caught up in schemes that Geralt wants no part of, meeting old friends, making new enemies, preparing for battles and making decisions is what makes the Witcher what it is. Every side quest has it's own little story and is done in a way which is very reminiscent of the style and format from the books.
The writing itself is beautifully designed where almost every dialogue option seems to flow into the other. It's not Dostoevsky by any means, but it's not meant to be.
The characters are varied and each has their own motive or agenda that they want to achieve, and very often clash with characters with different motives in a plausible and interesting way. This makes all the intrigue and complex geopolitical issues all the more realistic.
The Witcher sense is a weak part of the game unfortunately, especially in the early game where whenever you're supposed to use it, it seems like you're just wandering around aimlessly until you spot something red then you follow it to the next red thing and viola! An Ekimara.
It does get a little better over time as you subconsciously incorporate it into the whole "feeling like a witcher" experience where when you're given a scene to investigate you could deduce the monster or assailant alongside Geralt which really puts you into this supernatural detective vibe.
Also at some point they introduced metroidvania-esque items and mechanics, but unfortunately they never did anything with them which was a disappointment to me.
The Witcher 3 perhaps isn't a game that can be immediately enjoyed (yes, i know it takes roughly the length of an episode of Half Life 2 to reach the Bloody Baron, it's a bloody long game) if you're a newcomer to the series, which is understandable. There are a ton of characters you'd have to go to the glossary to know who they are, the political situation is confusing and the gameplay seems very bare-bones when you first set out.
I get that, i really do. But i don't say it lightly when i say it's one of the best games ever made. It accomplished almost everything it set out to do, which is not something you can say about every game.
If you want to give the game another chance here's what i recommend. Sit down and have a long session, finish BB, get to Novigrad (sidequests optional) and at least do a couple stages of the main quest there.
If at that point you don't feel like continuing you can safely delete the game and never touch it again.
The session should be pretty long, as i fear shorter sessions wouldn't be enough to engross fully.
iavealotmoretosaybutidontwanttoboreyouandimoutofspace
#6
-
lupusluzulu (01/11/2016) [-] Fallout 4. Both were inferior to their predecessors, but at least Fallout 4 added something to the series besides another game.
#7
-
deroderpderp (01/11/2016) [-] A well-trained knight could literally tear a Storm Trooper in two.
#44
-
maplesyrupman (11 hours ago) [-] Fallout 4 if it was coop, but since it's not it has to be a tie because one is singleplayer and the other is multiplayer
#48
-
loopymoomoo (11 hours ago) [-] You can't compare those
Ones a single player RPG
The other is a multiplayer war game
they aren't similar enough to compare
Ones a single player RPG
The other is a multiplayer war game
they aren't similar enough to compare
#105 to #48
-
ferrettamer (7 hours ago) [-] fallout 4 is not an rpg, it's a fps with minor rpg elements
#65
-
PSpepper (10 hours ago) [-] Best games of 2015. (IMO)
4. Undertale
3. Bloodborne
2. MGS5
1. The Witcher 3
4. Undertale
3. Bloodborne
2. MGS5
1. The Witcher 3
#90 to #68
-
putindispencerhere (7 hours ago) [-] >suddenly
If by that you mean since it came out. Basically its an rpg with nice, lovable characters and enough twists on the idea of an rpg to refresh the genre. There's also tons of messages and stuff, but describing it would spoil the game.
If by that you mean since it came out. Basically its an rpg with nice, lovable characters and enough twists on the idea of an rpg to refresh the genre. There's also tons of messages and stuff, but describing it would spoil the game.
#71 to #68
-
tacolishous (9 hours ago) [-] Have you BEEN on FJ for the last 3 or 4 months? There were some days it seemed every other comment was something about undertale. There's still people posting comps about it.
Imo it's worthy of the praise though. I'd recommend just ignoring everything about it and playing it for yourself when you get the chance. It's a pretty good game (and the soundtrack is ******* amazing.)
Imo it's worthy of the praise though. I'd recommend just ignoring everything about it and playing it for yourself when you get the chance. It's a pretty good game (and the soundtrack is ******* amazing.)
#2
-
omicronperseieight (01/11/2016) [-] Fallout 4, but both were ass and didn't live up to the previous games
#14
-
thevaulthunter (21 hours ago) [-] Fallout 4. I like them both, but Fallout 4 has so much more to do.
#17 to #14
-
battletechmech (16 hours ago) [-] Yeah, the star wars movie left me wanting after only 2 hours.
