What games are you currently playing?

[Keane]

I've been meaning to get back into RCT2 as well, but I got kinda discouraged when I accidentally lost my save file while switching files over to a new laptop. :/ Poured like 30 hours into that map.

Have you seen the fanmade OpenRCT2 mod? It's pretty exciting stuff, but it's too buggy to even bother using right now.

[Droolie]

I played FF8 yesterday

So did I! I just started a second playthrough since it's the only FF where I skipped the sidequests. I plan on 100%'ing it this time

[Fifo]

I played FF8 yesterday

So did I! I just started a second playthrough since it's the only FF where I skipped the sidequests. I plan on 100%'ing it this time

Nice! Good luck!

[Harpic fraîcheur]

Rayman : The Dark Magician's reign of terror

[Bradandez]

Still playing Rayman 3.

[Pirez]

I've been playing a bit of Hatfall lately. Curiously entertaining, especially for a flash game.

[Itooh]

I've started Virtue's Last Reward, a visual-novel with multiple-choice and puzzles on 3DS. It's the sequel of the excellent 9 Persons, 9 Doors, 9 Hours (maybe not in that order, yes).
The first thing I noticed is that it improved practically every issues I've seen in the first one! Those two games use in a very clever ways the concept of story with multiple paths, and need the player to run through several branches of the tree of possibilities to fully grasp the whole story, and obtain the right ending. The major problem of 999, though, was that you had always to start from the beginning, and solve the same puzzle again and again. Even with the ability to skip dialogs, it was tedious. And thus while there was some great ideas, the itself couldn't lie on a too much complex tree.

But here there actually is a system that allows to :
- Jump immediately to any scene of any branch, and especially to any choice
- Skip the puzzles with a non-invasive system (that makes sense in the story)
Thus giving the game more flexibility to explore its concept of non-linear tree exploration! Even if the narration is still odd sometimes (with characters explaining several time every aspect of the intrigue so that the player is never lost), exploring the different storylines and trying to figure out what's going on and where to go next is really enjoyable.

Eh, maybe it will be as clever as Save the Date. :3 For those who don't know this free (and really short) PC game, it's a visual-novel that looks pretty classic, but revolve around one clever puzzle. And like 999 and Virtue's Last Reward, it is self-aware in a brilliant way.


Last thought on Virtue's Last Reward: the game has 3D animations and voice actors! And even if it's pretty neat, the firsts can be a little bit weird sometimes (reused facial expressions everywhere \o/), and for the seconds, it's for every character except the main one, who talk in digital sounds.
Cinematics thus look quite fun if you imagine the hero actually sounding like this.

- Sigma, we need to find a way out of here quick!
- Blbl blbl blblblblblb.
- Not now, please.
- blblblbblblblbllb
- Stop.

[Imco]

Currently playing a lot of different Zelda games:

Replaying a Link Between Worlds
Playing my first playthrough of Majora's Mask 3D
Playing my first playthrough of Skyward Sword
Playing my first playthrough of Twilight Princess
Playing the second quest on Wind Waker HD

[Keane]

I've been on a Mario Party marathon, and it's making me wonder why people act like all the post-N64 titles were bad. MP6 & especially MP7 are fine games: decent minigames, aesthetically pleasing boards, interesting gimmicks, etc. Sure, the rest is fairly mediocre, and the new MP games suck major ass, but these two don't deserved to be lumped together with the rest.

Anyway, I'm thinking of doing a quick run through Wario World, maybe the forgotten Nintendo game for the GC.

[Itooh]

I've been on a Mario Party marathon, and it's making me wonder why people act like all the post-N64 titles were bad. MP6 & especially MP7 are fine games: decent minigames, aesthetically pleasing boards, interesting gimmicks, etc.

I 100% agree! These two are great party games, and have pretty clever idea in their mini-games and mechanisms.
I think the "hate" they received is because they kept the same formula, and there was nearly one by year. They all have some gimmicks, but it was still in the boundaries of a Mario Party game. Though, developers were aware of that: as I said, mini-games from one episode to another were actually creative, and could be quite complex while remaining accessible.

The two Wii ones were terrible, in that regard. 8 was, well, a poor experimentation with the Wiimote. Shaking, shaking, pointing, shaking… In wonderful 4/3 mini-games!
But the one I really don't like is the 9. And I'm as well surprised that so many people consider it as an "improvement"! Yes, it changed completely the formula, which in itself isn't bad… Except that it over-simplified the rules to let only a single factor of success: luck. There is no more strategy on the board, no more choices that have any impact, no more balance to keep between coins and stars… It's almost only rolling the dice. And random events have so much effect that everything that happens during a game has no importance, since a single event can change the total ranking… Players actions are thus irrelevant, until last turn. Same thing for the mini-games: man are they poor! Sure, no motion-control, hooray, but we're back to button smashing, avoiding blocks, pressing the indicated button, and running to a goal… There have been so many years of improvements in mini-games since the first Mario Party (and I don't talk about Nintendo games only: in more than ten year, party-games have evolved a lot), and this game just ignores all of that to serve something that looks like it was released in 2000!

The defense I see the most for those points is “Its 'a Party game, it shouldn't be complicated. There is no room for strategy or shit, the game must be accessible for everyone, and mustn't let anyone loosing too much. Deeper mechanics are incompatible with this purpose.”.
But the GC Mario Party are a proof that this is not the case! The series sure has created some more complex rules, with items to buy, special rules for each board, etc… But was still fun and accessible because it maintained a great balance between complexity and simple goals! And the mini-games remained simple to learn, but creative in the interactions they offer and even rich for some.
These games never revolutionized anything in the core formula, and that's probably why they are considered bad sequels. But they improved each time the initial game, and as add-on, I think they would have been well received (if it was technically possible on GC). Mario Party 6 is my favorite Mario Party, because it kept all the good concepts of the previous ones, and added some little other ideas. This makes it a way funnier party-game that the attempt to change and simplify everything that came later.

Though, in a totally different series, Wii Party has some good ideas. Might be one of the few party-game that use cleverly motion-control! I wish Mario Party had gone in that direction.

[Keane]

I 100% agree! These two are great party games, and have pretty clever idea in their mini-games and mechanisms.
I think the "hate" they received is because they kept the same formula, and there was nearly one by year. They all have some gimmicks, but it was still in the boundaries of a Mario Party game. Though, developers were aware of that: as I said, mini-games from one episode to another were actually creative, and could be quite complex while remaining accessible.

The two Wii ones were terrible, in that regard. 8 was, well, a poor experimentation with the Wiimote. Shaking, shaking, pointing, shaking… In wonderful 4/3 mini-games!

Yeah, I suppose it was repetitive, back when MP was at its peak I thought of it like Nintendo's Fifa: A yearly game to bring new ideas to the table. Which is why I was open to the car mechanic originally, but thinking about it now, they really need to embrace something that goes back to individual choices. Island Tour was an attempt but, I don't think there was any kind of ambition behind that game at all.

But the one I really don't like is the 9. And I'm as well surprised that so many people consider it as an "improvement"! Yes, it changed completely the formula, which in itself isn't bad… Except that it over-simplified the rules to let only a single factor of success: luck. There is no more strategy on the board, no more choices that have any impact, no more balance to keep between coins and stars… It's almost only rolling the dice. And random events have so much effect that everything that happens during a game has no importance, since a single event can change the total ranking… Players actions are thus irrelevant, until last turn. Same thing for the mini-games: man are they poor! Sure, no motion-control, hooray, but we're back to button smashing, avoiding blocks, pressing the indicated button, and running to a goal… There have been so many years of improvements in mini-games since the first Mario Party (and I don't talk about Nintendo games only: in more than ten year, party-games have evolved a lot), and this game just ignores all of that to serve something that looks like it was released in 2000!

Yeah exactly. 2 stands out as my favourite because it feels cleverly designed right to where the placement of each space on the board went. Each board requires different strategy and planning, and often it creates some really heated, but fun moments. When luck interferes with that, it's forgivable, because often you're making bets on likely situations.

In 9, you just roll and hope for the best. Even getting items or the first mini stars on the board are luck based. It's really brainless entertainment, and like you said, only the final turn matters. I've had a bomb blow away half my mini stars right before the end, or one of those events gives the 1st player even more mini stars.

And that's where my second major complaint comes in: Every board is exactly the same every time. Every time you know that same event will happen, that same boss minigame, etc. Especially in 10 which cut the amount of boards in half, and only allows 3 boards for Bowser Party, I and anyone I played with got bored extremely quickly, and now all we do is play Amiibo Party because it kinda resembles the classic MP formula.

The defense I see the most for those points is “Its 'a Party game, it shouldn't be complicated. There is no room for strategy or shit, the game must be accessible for everyone, and mustn't let anyone loosing too much. Deeper mechanics are incompatible with this purpose.”.
But the GC Mario Party are a proof that this is not the case! The series sure has created some more complex rules, with items to buy, special rules for each board, etc… But was still fun and accessible because it maintained a great balance between complexity and simple goals! And the mini-games remained simple to learn, but creative in the interactions they offer and even rich for some.

I strongly disagree with that argument too. As a kid, you take games seriously and you can't still have fun while losing, so naturally, I hated the luck aspects. If I played 9/10 back then, I'd just have gotten frustrated by how little influence I had over the game. For me the fun has always been about the star/coin duo: Saving up for items and Boo spaces, growing my amount of orb spaces on the board, risking duels, etc. There's luck involved, but it's luck you can partially control and work wit.

These games never revolutionized anything in the core formula, and that's probably why they are considered bad sequels. But they improved each time the initial game, and as add-on, I think they would have been well received (if it was technically possible on GC). Mario Party 6 is my favorite Mario Party, because it kept all the good concepts of the previous ones, and added some little other ideas. This makes it a way funnier party-game that the attempt to change and simplify everything that came later.

6 was a huge step in the right direction. 5 was the first to introduce orbs and, it did a really shitty job at it, and because the game was relying on the mechanic so much to make the boards interesting it kinda hurt itself in the process. 6 & 7 feel like much more polished experiences, and MP2's day/night mechanic coming back on every single board was sweet.

[Harpic fraîcheur]

I played Assassin's creed 4 a little bit yesterday.

[Keane]

So I got Wario World going and, it never occurred to me what a fucking bizarre this game is? I know Ninty didn't develop it, and it really barely feels like something out of the Mario universe. There's a lot of obscure art in there, especially the bosses look straight up awkward. I really like it though, it's an interesting experiment and nothing Ninty's ever put out since.

Just wish it had more to offer, only four worlds and the same enemies throughout most of the game, you can beat this in a weekend. Power ups would have been interesting.

[Rayfist]

Just did a stream with Adsolution, Imco, and a friend of mine named Julian.
We played Crash Bandicoot 3 and it was a lot of fun. We decided after beating it we're going to stream another game sometime soon, possibly Rayman 2 or 3.

I feared we went a little too off topic at least once or twice (Julian and Ad literally having a 30 minute Family Guy debate), otherwise things went well and it was a fun stream! I'll be sure to post here next time we're streaming.

[Haruka]

@Keane Funny enough me and my friends played Mario Party 6 in the night before they returned back to France. I tried all GC MPs and the ones I liked most were precisely the 6 and 7. We also played MP 10 days before and it was fun despiting of relying more in luck now. I particularly liked the amiibo mode but I can imagine being really boring when played alone.

As for the Wii titles, I did not try them out yet but knowing the feedback for those...

[Fifo]

I played FF8 (PC Steam version) a few hours ago.

[Keane]

@Keane Funny enough me and my friends played Mario Party 6 in the night before they returned back to France. I tried all GC MPs and the ones I liked most were precisely the 6 and 7. We also played MP 10 days before and it was fun despiting of relying more in luck now. I particularly liked the amiibo mode but I can imagine being really boring when played alone.

I did like MP10 offering more to do, with Amiibo party standing out. If anything, 10's ideas weren't even half bad, they just weren't executed very well. I don't really care much about the luck because I just like playing Mario Party regardless of whether I'm winning, but it's become more of a game to just casually play while talking rather than being about the heated, exciting moments.

As for the Wii titles, I did not try them out yet but knowing the feedback for those...

MP8 is alright-ish. The minigames are boring and the board gameplay is really slow, but I've had some fun with it, I just wouldn't ever pick it over other games.

As for 9, it's basically just 10 without amiibo/bowser party.

[Rayfist]

>Thinking Mario Party takes skill ever.
C'mon, they're great games and all but literally none of those titles take any type of complex skill what so ever, I speak out of experience for a lot of play sessions with friends from 1-8. The games are always soley reliant on luck, that's why it's called the "friendship destroyer."
It's very possible for your friend to be just minding his own business and out of nowhere he steals two stars from you. That isn't 'skill'.
You can memorize the minigames all you want but eventually you'll have that one friend who takes a fucking star from you for barely doing anything. Skill does not equal win for these type of party games.

That being said my favorite has always been Mario Party 4 for the Gamecube.
Mario Party 7 was actually one of my least favorites, I hated the mic minigames, and the maps got boring for me quickly.

[Keane]

Well yeah, but it's more about the control you have over the game. Sure it's all luck, but I can still decide on my strategy:

- Am I going to try and catch up with another player, or am I going to save up and head for a Boo space?

- I need to attempt to land on happening spaces, win the most minigames, use the most orbs, etc for the bonus stars

- I can purposely land on a Chance Time space with a slow shroom to mess things up

- I need to take out orb spaces from other players for my safety/benefit

- I can go left and stay safe, or go right and risk a duel

It's still all luck, but I can attempt strategy, use items to help me along the way, and create reachable goals. And especially in 6/7 the different methods of playing created some whole new approaches, most notably 7's stage with three star spaces, only you don't know if there actually is a star until you pay. You could also get a bomb and have yourself blown back to start (which might also come in handy sometimes), and halfway through the game Bowser adds a dark star which makes it extremely risky. I love this board because there's so much emphasis placed on collecting coins, getting to each corner, taking risks, etc.

And then there's Mario Party 9's mansion stage: Just roll the dice and hope you get lucky. There's 0 control and no strategy to that board, and even if you do get lucky, there's still a huge chance that the final segment will unfairly screw you over and make someone else win. Literally a mechanic based around fucking you up at the end, with no chance to really recover. It's the most unforgiving form of luck I've ever seen, and at this point we avoid it like the devil. But you know what? The beach and factory stages are basically the same thing, only they're just not as poorly designed, but it still results in everyone wanting to play the generic grassland board just because it's the most fair one.

Imo, 2 really nailed it. It's like no matter if I get severely screwed over, that game can never make me feel like it was totally unfair. 6/7 stand out to me as well because it felt like they kinda knew what they were doing again, and 5 is just so lacking in action that it makes them look like an even bigger improvement in comparison. Mic minigames are gimmicky as hell though.

[Rayfist]

I'm simply saying you can apply strategic strategy into a board but end up being fucked over by that friend of yours whose lost 10 minigames already because you landed on a random bowser piece or were blown up by a random hazard. I won't lie, you can be strategic, but to me a lot of it seems a little effortless only to be crushed unfairly by something or someone. It's just random. I'm totally fine with that though, since these are party games.