Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
Comments
In other news, the next FF game has an in-game timer of 26 hours. It seems that if it runs out and you haven't finished the game, you have to start over.
^Majora's Mask did the same thing. I'd expect there's some way in-game to buy you more time.
There is; certain sidequests will make the timer increase...and others will make it decrease. But once the time is up, it's up.
^^13 days with in-game day night cycles that last two hours, so that sounds about right.
I do think that there is a way to buy time, I remember reading about it earlier today.
Time-adding sidequests will be easy to find? I like the concept, but it is kind of annoying in execution (Especially since it's an RPG...). But isn't there a new game plus to counter that?
Possibly.
Looking closer at the article, though, Square Enix is apparently claiming that there's only one possible ending, and it's a good ending...does that mean that if you start the game and then just leave the system running for 26 hours without doing anything, you get the same ending as if you get 100% completion?
From here.
That sounds pretty good.
Oh, okay...
But...what progress is "progress?" I mean, does that mean that if I run out of time, it just starts the clock over and puts me back where I was? If so, what's the point?
Levels, maybe? Or special stuff you've unlocked that's not items (Magic, Attacks, non-story relevant Limit Breaks, Monsters)?
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/119457-Minecraft-Becomes-a-United-Nations-Development-Tool
One of the coolest things I have seen in game journalism.
That would make sense. But then you'd still have to play the entire game again.
But it would be easier, eventually it'd just be the game VS an Extremely Overpowered for a Beginner player. I can see how it would be frustrating in a situation that came down to "Run out of time in the middle of the final boss fight", though.
@Minecraft: That is really cool...
Easy busywork is better than hard busywork, but it's still busywork.
I would agree if it was a condition that was set up early or at the very least if they didn't just remove it right away without any explanation. But all we have a retroactively enforced rule because they didn't think that people would upload porn (Probably. Or at the very least, I can't think of any reason why they wouldn't have that on the rules if they didn't want porn games in the first place)
And really, I don't mind that it didn't go through but simply that it was removed.
My point is not that Steam should have added porn to its store. But simply that the way it played out is the sort of thing that I think Valve should try and avoid. Personally, it's their decision, in the end. And if it were for me, I wouldn't mind there being porn games on the steam store, but I'm aware that's not something Valve desires so it's not a point I'm willing to be particularly argumentative about.
There's no point in a voting system for the userbase if in the end, the counters decide how many votes there are instead of counting the votes. So there's no point in setting up a thing that allows the customer to vote for these games if they're not gonna listen to the votes in the end.
That just sounds like Dead Rising, and the time limit was never really an issue in that unless you either weren't paying attention or wanted to do the sidequests (in which case, obviously it should be harder).
Having had to write an online rules list myself (i.e. this forum), I can say with some certainty that it's quite possible to not notice that something isn't in there, especially if it's something really really obvious.
That's kinda missing the point for an RPG though. Typically you run a sidequest in an RPG to get stronger or get better gear to make the main game easier.
re new FF game:
They're probably not counting the game over ending as an ending.
re Seduce Me article:
Really? They didn't expect this to go down badly?
You are making the game easier (increasing time) and we're not sure whether that means you won't get better gear as a reward after sidequests too.
And I understand that, as I stated previously. (Also, that should have said "any other reason". My apologies.)
But how much will they increase time? I mean, if I spent an hour on a sidequest and got half an hour back, I'd be pissed.
But I'm really less concerned about that than about the fact that I could play a game for more than a day of real time, only for it to go "nope. Start over."
Maybe the main game minus sidequests can be completed in less than 24 hours for an average player and sidequests are still what they're meant to be, but there are a lot of them, so they'll extend your time then?
Show the amount of time rewarded at completion before the sidequest begins?
The article never even said it would do that. More likely, it'll just be that you have to reload your save and try again. I imagine that the game will make at least some attempt to ensure that you're on the right pace to actually finish the game, probably by forcing you to have completed certain things by certain times, so most likely you won't end up 25 hours into the game with only half of the game completed, and thus unable to finish it.
Well, that's assuming Square Enix is thinking this through at all, anyway.
Given that we're talking about a time budget, that would only be helpful if you were literally at the final boss fight when you ran out. And the thing fourteenwings listed did say that there's a new game plus for people who run out of time.
Started The Witcher 2.
The first game was pretty uncanny valley, but this one is just gorgeous.
So, I've been looking back at TWEWY, and something's been bugging me (major spoilers if you haven't beaten the game, yada yada): Resurrection.
Whilst Neku can reasonably be suggested to be considered a missing person, rather than dead, assuming Joshua didn't just leave his corpse lying about, the same can't be said about Shiki, Beat, and Rhyme. All three of them are known to be dead in the real world, so what happens when they come back? Are their family/friends left to wonder why their loved ones are suddenly 100% less deceased? Are their memories changed to hide the discrepancies? Or are the players dropped into a universe where they never died in the first place? After all, you'd think people would notice a bunch of formerly dead people not being so dead any more.
The way I see it, there are two options:
On the other hand, the reports say that resurrection isn't the normal outcome of winning the game, so it's possible that they're just alive where they weren't before and it's just left as a miracle for the world to figure out. It had never been much of a problem before because it would normally be, say, a person or two per century.
>Romance Shani in The Witcher, making Triss hate me
>Import save to The Witcher 2
>Game opens with me waking up next to Triss
Wut.
Presumably Geralt forgot to turn his swag off before going to bed.
What are some good spectator games? Like, ones that might actually invite spectator participation even if they're one-player (or one-player-at-a-time) games?
Super Mario Galaxy has a minor thing that a second player can do with an extra Wiimote without actually directly participating, if that's what you mean.
Something similar is happening with a few Wii U games, advertising this whole "asymmetric multiplayer" thing they tout endlessly. So far, it's pretty much identical to how it was applied in Super Mario Galaxy.