The "What are you playing now?" Thread

[MalTalm]

Debating getting a Wii U... really want to play some Mario.

Good idea?

If you've got the money to sink into a system with 5 games, go for it. Otherwise, wait for whatever piece of hardware Nintendo rolls out next. They've already been hinting that they'll quickly be moving on from the Wii U.

 

[Snarly]

If you've got the money to sink into a system with 5 games, go for it. Otherwise, wait for whatever piece of hardware Nintendo rolls out next. They've already been hinting that they'll quickly be moving on from the Wii U.

If he wants to play the most Mario the Wii U is the pick. You can not deny that.

 

[theSTEREO.]

I really, really, really wish Nintendo would come out with something radically different.

I was a Nintendo fanatic when I was a kid (I suppose most of us were), and after N64, absolutely nothing has grabbed my attention. I went XBox and never looked back.

But I adore all those Nintendo franchises, but the Gamecube, Wii, and Wii U are just not enjoyable for me to play. The controls are too gimicky, and their graphics always feel about 4 years behind.

Please Nintendo, come out with a true next-gen console, include actual interesting and playable versions of Mario, Zelda, Metroid, Mega Man, and the others and I promise I will buy it.

 

[Jack Brickman]

Just a heads up...episode five of Telltale's Game of Thrones dropped today.

 

[Mdog1]

Man Nintendo really needs 3rd party support. I don't think it is a coincidence MS and Sony went with a pc like box, so the third parties would benefit from easier development.

If the next Nintendo system isn't x86, I think it will be DOA, and if the graphics are not at least on par, or superior than hardware that is going on 4 years older than it, I can't imagine it being a success.

Nintendo has been going down in users since the SNES, except the wii. If the next system isn't a success like the wii, and follows the WiiU's example, hopefully Nintendo goes third party, so people aren't forced to buy an entire console for a couple of games.

 

[Jack Brickman]

Well, that episode of Game of Thrones was about as depressing as a fucking episode of the show. Jesus.

Spoiler: Episode Five Spoilers

So who did you guys leave behind? I left Rodrik. Asher's gonna be the new lord of House Forrester. It's his destiny. It was kind of cool how that was literally a 50/50 split when it shows how other people chose. It said 50.4% of people chose to leave Rodrik behind. Crazy that it's that even, although I guess it's probably still a pretty small sample size. I wonder if that includes console gamers too.

It was also 50/50 over whether or not to execute the traitor. I did it. Fuck Duncan. Did anyone spare him? If so, did knowing about the ambush change the outcome at all? Somehow I doubt that it's possible for both Rodrik and Asher to survive.

 

[CardiacCavs]

Well, that episode of Game of Thrones was about as depressing as a fucking episode of the show. Jesus.

Spoiler: Episode Five Spoilers

So who did you guys leave behind? I left Rodrik. Asher's gonna be the new lord of House Forrester. It's his destiny. It was kind of cool how that was literally a 50/50 split when it shows how other people chose. It said 50.4% of people chose to leave Rodrik behind. Crazy that it's that even, although I guess it's probably still a pretty small sample size. I wonder if that includes console gamers too.

It was also 50/50 over whether or not to execute the traitor. I did it. Fuck Duncan. Did anyone spare him? If so, did knowing about the ambush change the outcome at all? Somehow I doubt that it's possible for both Rodrik and Asher to survive.

Spoiler: Episode Five Spoilers

I am doing two play-throughs; One is my unapologetic northern take no bullshit kind of play-through, and the other is a more subtle, long-con kind of play-through. Both have ended terribly, but at least it felt good being a rebellious little shit on my first play-through. I have only played through the most recent episode once, and I decided to leave Asher behind for a couple of reasons. I don't think Asher is a "lord" type. He would have thrived as a second son who can be Rodrik's right hand man and do the dirty work (at least that's how I played him, the cut-throat rogue type who puts family above anything). He has no business leading a house. While it sucked that he came all the way from Meereen just to die within 30 foot steps of the boat, but I think Asher totally would have sacrificed himself for Rodrik before Rodrik did the same for Asher. I think Beshka will be loyal to Rodrik now after seeing Asher sacrifice himself for him. The pit-fighters may be trouble, but I think they could fall in line with Beshka around, and for revenge purposes. You also have the marriage with the Glenmore lady to worry about (dat ass doe). Though I can imagine a scenario where Asher unites the two houses by marrying Gwen if he survived.

I will definitely make the opposite choice on my second playthrough to see how its different. Also, my traitor was Royland (because I chose Duncan as Sentinel...the fuck...) I actually was so fast to kill him I didn't catch what he said about Asher. Also, I do know that knowing about the ambush changes nothing. One or the other must die.

All in all, it was a thoroughly depressing episode. Well deserving of the Game of Thrones title.

Here is what I am speculating for future episodes/ seasons:

Spoiler: Future speculation

I can see one POV in the North as Asher/Rodrik. It would be really interesting to see if next season you receive a raven with a flaming stag sigil asking for you allegiance, and you must choose between joining Stannis or the Boltons....

I have no fucking clue what is going to happen at the North Grove. I am guessing there is some sort of deal between the Children of the Forest and the Forresters that goes wayyyyy back that has something to do with their mastery of the Ironwood. Although, I am really curious to see what "ice dragon" means on the map you are given.

I imagine the Uncle staying in Essos is to provide a POV in Meereen for Dany's stuff. If this game is really ambitious, I could see this Forrester storyline sticking it out until the very end, when Dany finally comes back and they get rewarded for their loyalty.

I imagine Mira will be fine as a game like this needs some character in King's Landing to do the some of political machinations that we all have come to know from Game of Thrones. I imagine you will have some sort of decision to make between Margaery and Cersei, but both end up in some pretty shitty situations so IDK what will happen there long term.

 

[Jack Brickman]

Spoiler: Episode Five Spoilers

I am doing two play-throughs; One is my unapologetic northern take no bullshit kind of play-through, and the other is a more subtle, long-con kind of play-through. Both have ended terribly, but at least it felt good being a rebellious little shit on my first play-through. I have only played through the most recent episode once, and I decided to leave Asher behind for a couple of reasons. I don't think Asher is a "lord" type. He would have thrived as a second son who can be Rodrik's right hand man and do the dirty work (at least that's how I played him, the cut-throat rogue type who puts family above anything). He has no business leading a house. While it sucked that he came all the way from Meereen just to die within 30 foot steps of the boat, but I think Asher totally would have sacrificed himself for Rodrik before Rodrik did the same for Asher. I think Beshka will be loyal to Rodrik now after seeing Asher sacrifice himself for him. The pit-fighters may be trouble, but I think they could fall in line with Beshka around, and for revenge purposes. You also have the marriage with the Glenmore lady to worry about (dat ass doe). Though I can imagine a scenario where Asher unites the two houses by marrying Gwen if he survived.

I will definitely make the opposite choice on my second playthrough to see how its different. Also, my traitor was Royland (because I chose Duncan as Sentinel...the fuck...) I actually was so fast to kill him I didn't catch what he said about Asher. Also, I do know that knowing about the ambush changes nothing. One or the other must die.

All in all, it was a thoroughly depressing episode. Well deserving of the Game of Thrones title.

Here is what I am speculating for future episodes/ seasons:

Spoiler: Future speculation

I can see one POV in the North as Asher/Rodrik. It would be really interesting to see if next season you receive a raven with a flaming stag sigil asking for you allegiance, and you must choose between joining Stannis or the Boltons....

I have no fucking clue what is going to happen at the North Grove. I am guessing there is some sort of deal between the Children of the Forest and the Forresters that goes wayyyyy back that has something to do with their mastery of the Ironwood. Although, I am really curious to see what "ice dragon" means on the map you are given.

I imagine the Uncle staying in Essos is to provide a POV in Meereen for Dany's stuff. If this game is really ambitious, I could see this Forrester storyline sticking it out until the very end, when Dany finally comes back and they get rewarded for their loyalty.

I imagine Mira will be fine as a game like this needs some character in King's Landing to do the some of political machinations that we all have come to know from Game of Thrones. I imagine you will have some sort of decision to make between Margaery and Cersei, but both end up in some pretty shitty situations so IDK what will happen there long term.

I personally was really disappointed that the traitor changes based on your decisions. It would have been much better if the traitor was the same regardless, but their motives change based on what you do.

 

[CardiacCavs]

I personally was really disappointed that the traitor changes based on your decisions. It would have been much better if the traitor was the same regardless, but their motives change based on what you do.

Ya. TellTale really tries to sell how your decisions affect the story line with their games but if you pick one of them to be your sentinel, even if you support the other in every other decision you make, they will still betray you, and list those decisions as the reason why, despite them being the one who suggested you do it.

At this point, I just like to think of their games as a sort of interactive movie where you get to change the minor details but the over arching plot will remain the same no matter what you do. You just gotta enjoy what you are given, which honestly has been a very good narrative in all of their games (W.D., Wolf Among Us, GOT. Haven't played tales from the borderlands though)

 

[Chris]

Anyone else kind of dismayed at the ridiculous amount of large open world games these days? It's like the incredible 15 hour single player experience is a lost art. Even long-time franchise that have stuck to mission based formulas, such as Ghost Recon and Metal Gear are switching to open-world. It's not that I dislike these games, though. I mean I have to say Far Cry 4 was one of the best if not THE best FPS games I've played in forever. Just a really satisfying, rewarding experience. But I also sank 25 hours into that game, and only completed roughly ~40% of it (albeit, I got the main story, and most of the side quests are just copy/paste missions, but still).

It's like, I'm an adult now, with a job, and school on top of that, as well as other things going on in life. And these games keep getting fucking bigger and bigger. The RPGs I certainly understand, but even then, Pillars of Eternity, Dragon Age 3, and Witcher 3 are all sitting on my proverbial gaming lap right now and I honestly am not sure whether to even bother since I'm not sure I'll play them to a point where I can say I "finished" it in a reasonable amount of time.

I suppose this is a good thing for a lot of hardcore gamers. I'm kind of an "on and off" gamer, I get in these moods where I want to play everything, then the next week I lose interest for a while. Hence why I literally just finished Far Cry 4 back in May, and Dragon Age 3 I've only put 10-15 hours into despite owning both since November. Bought Witcher 3 a month ago and haven't touched it. I'm a huge MG fan, so come Sept 1, another open world huge ass game in MGS5 comes out.

Not really a complaint. Just a few random thoughts. I start school again in a month and I really want to at least beat a couple more of the games on my plate right now before that happens, but right now I'm romping through GTA5 and I'm not sure how long that is going to take.

 

[Adam]

Anyone else kind of dismayed at the ridiculous amount of large open world games these days? It's like the incredible 15 hour single player experience is a lost art. Even long-time franchise that have stuck to mission based formulas, such as Ghost Recon and Metal Gear are switching to open-world. It's not that I dislike these games, though. I mean I have to say Far Cry 4 was one of the best if not THE best FPS games I've played in forever. Just a really satisfying, rewarding experience. But I also sank 25 hours into that game, and only completed roughly ~40% of it (albeit, I got the main story, and most of the side quests are just copy/paste missions, but still).

It's like, I'm an adult now, with a job, and school on top of that, as well as other things going on in life. And these games keep getting fucking bigger and bigger. The RPGs I certainly understand, but even then, Pillars of Eternity, Dragon Age 3, and Witcher 3 are all sitting on my proverbial gaming lap right now and I honestly am not sure whether to even bother since I'm not sure I'll play them to a point where I can say I "finished" it in a reasonable amount of time.

I suppose this is a good thing for a lot of hardcore gamers. I'm kind of an "on and off" gamer, I get in these moods where I want to play everything, then the next week I lose interest for a while. Hence why I literally just finished Far Cry 4 back in May, and Dragon Age 3 I've only put 10-15 hours into despite owning both since November. Bought Witcher 3 a month ago and haven't touched it. I'm a huge MG fan, so come Sept 1, another open world huge ass game in MGS5 comes out.

Not really a complaint. Just a few random thoughts. I start school again in a month and I really want to at least beat a couple more of the games on my plate right now before that happens, but right now I'm romping through GTA5 and I'm not sure how long that is going to take.

I know what you mean, I tend to avoid massive games now as I'll never get a chance to complete them. This year I have done shadow of mordor and arkham knight (only 50%) through. Those and 2k15. I'm prioritising single player games as online makes me too obsessed and I'll start getting over competitive with Asian teens.

I'll probably go with Mgs though just too good not to pass up! Tomb raider will be after that as it's another solid single player experience

 

[kookoo]

Anyone else kind of dismayed at the ridiculous amount of large open world games these days? It's like the incredible 15 hour single player experience is a lost art. Even long-time franchise that have stuck to mission based formulas, such as Ghost Recon and Metal Gear are switching to open-world. It's not that I dislike these games, though. I mean I have to say Far Cry 4 was one of the best if not THE best FPS games I've played in forever. Just a really satisfying, rewarding experience. But I also sank 25 hours into that game, and only completed roughly ~40% of it (albeit, I got the main story, and most of the side quests are just copy/paste missions, but still).

It's like, I'm an adult now, with a job, and school on top of that, as well as other things going on in life. And these games keep getting fucking bigger and bigger. The RPGs I certainly understand, but even then, Pillars of Eternity, Dragon Age 3, and Witcher 3 are all sitting on my proverbial gaming lap right now and I honestly am not sure whether to even bother since I'm not sure I'll play them to a point where I can say I "finished" it in a reasonable amount of time.

I suppose this is a good thing for a lot of hardcore gamers. I'm kind of an "on and off" gamer, I get in these moods where I want to play everything, then the next week I lose interest for a while. Hence why I literally just finished Far Cry 4 back in May, and Dragon Age 3 I've only put 10-15 hours into despite owning both since November. Bought Witcher 3 a month ago and haven't touched it. I'm a huge MG fan, so come Sept 1, another open world huge ass game in MGS5 comes out.

Not really a complaint. Just a few random thoughts. I start school again in a month and I really want to at least beat a couple more of the games on my plate right now before that happens, but right now I'm romping through GTA5 and I'm not sure how long that is going to take.

The sad life of a gamer who enjoys story based, non-repetitive games. I was just talking about this with my friends a few days ago. You'd think with the tech and resources at their disposal, they would be able to make something cinematic that actually held people's attentions and kept giving players new experiences throughout the game. Unfortunately, people are going to pay and play regardless, and the core group of gamers are willing to put in over 100 hours to do all the pointless side missions. I don't have time for the damn Riddler trophies.

The last amazing story based game I played (still repetitive with fights) was The Last of Us. Naughty Dog is great with stories and they have been improving their mechanics.

 

[Jack Brickman]

Anyone else kind of dismayed at the ridiculous amount of large open world games these days? It's like the incredible 15 hour single player experience is a lost art. Even long-time franchise that have stuck to mission based formulas, such as Ghost Recon and Metal Gear are switching to open-world. It's not that I dislike these games, though. I mean I have to say Far Cry 4 was one of the best if not THE best FPS games I've played in forever. Just a really satisfying, rewarding experience. But I also sank 25 hours into that game, and only completed roughly ~40% of it (albeit, I got the main story, and most of the side quests are just copy/paste missions, but still).

It's like, I'm an adult now, with a job, and school on top of that, as well as other things going on in life. And these games keep getting fucking bigger and bigger. The RPGs I certainly understand, but even then, Pillars of Eternity, Dragon Age 3, and Witcher 3 are all sitting on my proverbial gaming lap right now and I honestly am not sure whether to even bother since I'm not sure I'll play them to a point where I can say I "finished" it in a reasonable amount of time.

I suppose this is a good thing for a lot of hardcore gamers. I'm kind of an "on and off" gamer, I get in these moods where I want to play everything, then the next week I lose interest for a while. Hence why I literally just finished Far Cry 4 back in May, and Dragon Age 3 I've only put 10-15 hours into despite owning both since November. Bought Witcher 3 a month ago and haven't touched it. I'm a huge MG fan, so come Sept 1, another open world huge ass game in MGS5 comes out.

Not really a complaint. Just a few random thoughts. I start school again in a month and I really want to at least beat a couple more of the games on my plate right now before that happens, but right now I'm romping through GTA5 and I'm not sure how long that is going to take.

My problem is that so many games are made into open world games when it seems like they really don't need to be. What did the Batman games gain by being open world? I personally still think the original Arkham Asylum was the best of them as far as the actual game world is concerned. The open world sequels just featured a lot of unnecessary travel. And while it's certainly cool to glide around as Batman, it tends to be more annoying than fun when your next objective appears all the way on the other side of the map. The environment also feels totally artificial since every game has to go out of its way to empty all the civilians out of the city.

The Witcher 3 is kind of like that too. The world is so big that travel becomes more of a chore than excitement, especially as the game wears on and you just want to get to the next story bit. It's a well-designed and beautiful world, but I still pretty much always just fast travel whenever the option is available to me, and I'm sure most other gamers are of a similar mindset. I will admit that The Witcher 3 being open world makes a hell of a lot more sense than the Batman games, though.

I really wish more games would just focus on fifteen hours of great, relatively linear story. The last great game I can think of that did that was Wolfenstein, and that came out last year.

 

[Ohio]

Anyone else having trouble signing into XBL on Xbox One?

edit: Yeah, it is down for everyone it seems.

 

[spydy13]

Debating getting a Wii U... really want to play some Mario.

Good idea?

Mario Maker is about to drop in September, most likely with a system bundle so you might want to wait for that. That will get you a ton of bang for your buck as you'll get a 100 new Mario levels straight out the box, plus the ability to download or create your own for free.

I also wouldn't be shocked if they dropped the price a bit at the holidays so you could wait till then as well. As many others have said, Nintendo is getting ready to move on from this system in a year or so, but there a ton of good games on it so I don't think you'll feel like you wasted your money regardless As long as you aren't expecting to play any third party games on it.