So, considering we're all here to develop games, it's probably a safe bet that you all also, sometimes, play games. Right? And before that, you buy them in a store. Or online. Or you steal them from a friend.

So, now that you have a game, you play it. And then, you come here and give us your impressions/review.

Now, clever people in this forum will reply with witty one-liners consisting entirely of a link to either Metacritic or Gamerankings (or whatever). But this is not what we're after! We want to hear reviews of friends and fellow gamedevelopers (by which I mean you).

After you gave us your review, or first impressions, or whatever, you can tell us things you like about it from a gamedeveloperperspective. You know, "I liked the interface in XY because they have that neat little thing". Or "I like how the story unfolds". Or "I didn't play it, but I ate the manual, and it was delicious".


So this is what I kind of hope this thread will become. A nice extra would be that it's possible to ask questions to people who have the game in case you're not sure if you want it. Or people could recommend you something when you tell them what kind of games you like. Aah, what a promising premise!

You may now tell me that this is a stupid idea and a horrible thread. You may also not post here, causing this to end up with zero replies - another failed thread attempt of mine (I have plenty already).

Beating the zero replies part :p

i currently play zelda a linkto the past again. and again. and again...
i think, its the best zelda to date, even beats twilight princess and the excellent links awakening.

so why do i love this game?
well, for once, its the ONLY zelda game that throws you in the middle of an already ongoing conflict.
sure, one could say that in twilight princess the conflict is already in motion and you get sucked in, but nothing beats the gritty openin in link to the past.
six maidens already kidnapped, ganons return on the horizion, hyrule destruction already happening and lots of trouble for anyone. and then, you start the game.
its not liek ocarina of time where the first three dungeons actually are happy and shiny and stuff. its dark. and evil.

also, it perfected zelda. any other game just copies that one. and while links awakening is excellent, it just replicates what we got...

so thats why i love a link to the past... zelda at its best...

If you don't mind me asking: Was "A link to the Past" your first Zelda?

My theory is that no matter which Zeldagame you played first (excluding the CD-i ones), that one is going to end up as your favorite. Or maybe this only works with your first Zeldagame past "Adventure of Link"?

Anyway, my first Zelda was Links Awakening and - surprise - it's my favorite (though Wind Waker is a close second). It has this bittersweet melancholy going that no other Zeldagame had, and its ending is, basically, the only Zelda-ending that evokes emotions other than "Well, that was a nice game, too bad it's over" (I won't spoil it here, but I guess those who palyed it know what I'm talking about) (although it could be argued that Wind Waker does that, too)

Anyway, I played A link to the Past, and I do think its really good, but for some reason, it doesn't "click" with me like other Zeldagames do. Not sure what it is - I think I like my overworld/dungeon-split a bit more on the "overworld"-side (though not as much as wind waker did, aah, yes, it's a hard balance)

---

In other news, since I'm the biggest fan of rhythm games ever, I bought "Rhythm Tengoku" (Japan) / "Rhythm Heaven" (Americas) / "Rhythm Paradise" (Europe) for the DS. And I really like it so far! I was kind of worried that they would mess up all the voices, since come on, how in the world DO you translate annoying J-Pop ("Kamo-ne" (Some weird title like, "Is this love!?") becomes "I suppose" in the american version), but at least with the German version, they did an okay job (by far not perfect, but then, I'm not sure how you can make this work in german) It's horribly catchy in all versions, though.
The game is fun, although there is a "flicking"-mechanic which seems to not be properly recognized in some games (in others its no problem). That can be annoying, but I'd still recommend the game to anyone who likes rhythm-games. While it's difficult, it's not as horribly sadistic like most other of these games (it lets you skip a game after you fail four times or so, a mechanic that I decided to ignore completely: I will conquer each and every game (even those in which, I don't know, I play a dancing frog?). It has a nice kind of humor to it which I appreciate very much - although it had me fail a game once because I had to laugh

So... all in all: recommended.

But then, I'm probably pretty much the only one with a DS here, huh? (Yeah, I know you have one, Spike ;)). Is Etrian Odyssey any good? I hear very mixed things about it, anyone played that?

ha, lately my game design has actually limited my game playing instead of being a reason for it. kinda odd.

I just got myself Star Wars - The Force Unleashed, telling the story of Darth Vader's secret Padawan.

Now.. The control's are a bit tacky, since I haven't gotten used to it, but using wiimote as the lightsabre really gives new kicks, creating combos by sweeping the wiimote to one direction and pushing the right button creates different attacks.

From developer's point of view it's a true artwork. The GUI is well placed and menus work by placing the red lightsabre's sabre over a menu item. I think some missions are a bit small in length, but I think and hope the whole game won't be just as small with small arcs. My Force intuition hopes. The ingame movement is smooth and enemies have decent AI. I especially hate bazooka users.

Nothing else much to say. Play it.

I ate EVE Online. I never played it, but I was eating it anyway. I've read most, if not all of the stories, the items, the newsletter every while. And so, I know a lot about EVE. But I never played it.

It looks boring to play.

The Wii did surprise me in how much fun playing with the Wii-mote is, but the games gravely disappointed me so far. There's really no game that would make me actually buy a Wii. ( I wouldn't admit it first, but the Wii mote definitely is more than just a hardware gimmick , it's actually a very nice new way of control).

Having said that, I would love to see a Wii kind of thing for the PC, complete with full support for modern games with proper graphics. Think Force Unleashed, but with the PS3 graphics.

Anyways, as for the topic. I'd have to think and possibly replay a few games to truly figure out what made them really good, but there's a hand full of examples I probably can come up with.

I'm going to try to keep things short, but in most cases it's pretty obvious once you've played the games.

Oni - Fluent hand to hand combat with very VERY smooth animations that blend perfectly using a very clever system . Level design is dull and empty, but the gameplay and said animation & combat system makes up for it for the most part. I'd love to see Bungie make a new Oni someday to take it a step further.

Chronicles of Riddick - While the game itself was excellent and has many things that make it worthwhile, one thing that really made me say 'wow' out loud was the very impressive menu . A cube that changed by twisting around like a rubix cube, unfolding and folding. Really good looking.

Thief: The Dark Project (or rather the whole Thief game series) - Up to this day still the best true use of stealth in games . Shadows, sound, visibility, stealth-related weaponry. It's more or less the only game series that really knows how it should be done properly and realistically (even in the first game). The Hitman series comes close, but feels so much more like an arcade action game compared to the intense sneaking in Thief.

Battlezone (mostly Battlezone 1, but also Battlezone 2) - It simply KICKS TOTAL ASS to snipe a player out of his tank, walker or other kind of vehicle in that game . It's marvelously balanced (I'm talking about Battlezone 1 now) and a great mix of strategy and first person / third person / vehicle action. It's sort of the GTA of space games, but highly underrated. I didn't like the whole style change the sequel brought us, but the original game still kicks lots.

Another thing that stood out was the 'thumper' weapon . It made the soil fold like giant ripples causing nearby vehicles to jump up a bit in the air. Made them spin uncontrollable for a split second. Great idea and execution and players were able to strategically use it to their advantage, without becoming an unfair or unbalanced weapon!

Grappling hooks - Yup, grappling hooks are totally awesome and I've played many games with either real grappling hooks or things that worked like them (legs, ropes, chains with a spike ball, etc.). It's probably one of the best truly gameplay influencing things I've seen in many years. It's a bit like Indiana Jones' wip! But in games.. how awesome is that?

Anyways, I might post even more later,
Cheers

I thought so till I played (and finished) Ocarina of Time. I've played all the old zelda games, but to date the first one I beat was Ocarina of Time. Generally Zelda games, including Link to the Past, have an area where the game kinda drops a bit and gives you that "freedom" that all rpgs have to make the game seem longer, and by freedom I mean you walk around without any big story things going on and you fight lots of stuff for like 5 hours and then finally get back to playing the story. Normally Zelda loses me at this time. Ocarina of Time had it too (it is an RPG), but it was more fun during the "freedom" area than most games are. Not to mention the controls were perfect, they couldn't have been better.

my first zelda game was linkss awakening aswell. i love that game, and yes, it is very emotinal. but somehow, it missed something. probably the darkness. in links awakening, you can take your time and enjoy the island. you know that its over when the wind fish wakes up, but you dont need to rush. in a link to the past, you always knew that lives were at stake, and that ganons influence grew with every second, even if nothing really happened (except with that flute boy)...

a third-party hardware developer is working on such a thing for PS3 and XBox 360, my brother tells me (i never really need to look up news in the gaming world because he would know it all already by the time i found it).

Valkyria Chronicles: great game. had the demo for a while, thought it was kinda fun turn-based strategy, nothing more. youngest brother begged for it for his birthday, so my other brother and i chipped in and got it for him, and it's currently my favourite game.

the graphics are gorgeous, in a beautiful watercolour and ink style rendering. little lesson: too many games try to look photorealistic (and may look close in screenshots), and then destroy the illusion when they move and animate just like any other game. stylised games don't suffer from that. they still animate like other games, generally, and have occasional issues with characters running on the spot against walls and what-not, but that doesn't break the immersion.

the controls are easy, and the gameplay simple to learn. i watched my brother play through the whole game, and then towards the end when he was fed-up with the idea of retrying a level he asked me to have a go -- since we'd gone through it all discussing strategies as we went, and it is almost entirely strategy dependent (as opposed to acquiring the feel of the game for realtime combat), i picked it up immediately and beat the level. that's one downside -- as each mission can be quite lengthy, and the type of game requires that failure needs a complete mission restart, losing CAN be frustrating. however, i wouldn't call that a lesson learned, it's just something the player has to deal with, and should put down the controller and come back later.

the voice acting is SHOCKING, but no one's surprised. the characters are generally likable, and enough thought has been put into them to keep things interesting. the story is much more interesting than most of the characters themselves, and the cutscenes are awesome.

speaking of which, i think i recollect sPIKe saying he always prefers realtime cutscenes (as opposed to pre-rendered) for the sake of game-flow? the pre-rendered cutscenes are relatively few, and they are utilised very well. they're only really necessary for more on-screen characters and better particle effects. they're well-animated, and often have some pretty cool action.

a lot of time will be spent in the menus, which some will dislike, but we liked. different menus generally have different characters that govern them. weapons can be upgraded, and while at first weapon upgrades appear linear and hence a waste of time, they branch later to different options. you get to choose who's in your squad out of 50ish unique characters with different advantages and disadvantages, and if any of them die in battle without a medic reaching them in 3 phases they DIE PERMANENTLY (unless of course you retry the mission instead of finishing). this made us actually care about each character and make efforts to preserve them. classes can be upgraded at different rates, side-missions can be bought and played, and new orders can be learned to buff your squad mid-battle.

there are many hours in this single player game. we spent about 34 hrs before finishing, but some of that time was spent replaying skirmishes.

every mission has a unique gimmick, which is awesome. one mission you might have to dodge mortar fire, another you face a giant tank, another your forces are split and have to rejoin each other... it goes on, and every mission needs to be thought of differently, which is great.

the ending is climactic and satisfying, and the player is rewarded with a "clear" mode, where they can go through the story again at an accelerated rate (cutscenes and some other things are entirely optional), and once passed the player can replay any mission at their leisure.

it was really nice to play a rewarding, varied, stylish, and LONG game.

so if you have a PS3, get Valkyria Chronicles

and ignore the Zero Punctuation review of it. i know he always reviews negatively, but he's at least right to a degree most of the time, whereas in this case he completely misinterpreted the gameplay and even criticised essential game-mechanics.

it's worth noting that there is no multiplayer, despite the ease with which at least local multiplayer could've been implemented given its turn-based nature. after playing through the game, though, the length of each player's turn, among other things, meant it wouldn't translate directly to a good multiplayer game, so all's forgiven.

btw, hi again everyone!

julz