Story mode is fun, although to get the Super Saiyan Blues you need to get the regular version to level 40 and some characters aren't in (SS2 Gohan, Trunks, and the Dragon Ball Super characters). It's actually pretty long, especially for a fighting game story mode but even in general it's pretty long, I'd say around 15 hours or so for your first run and then the hard mode unlocks. It's fully voiced and acted out too which is nice and has tons of fun interactions.
I haven't tried the arcade mode out much, it's pretty much bare bones though and kind of bullshit on later matches in hard mode. I've had good results in multiplayer though. Also for some reason I'm maining Goku Black and SSB Goku, I don't know how that happened.

 

Boudokai wept

 

Budokai sat in the corner silently knowing that it was truly dethroned. Jon is right, DBFZ is the BEST Dragonball Fighting game ever.

 

I think Budokai would be happy , it can finally pass the torch and take some much deserved rest.

btw Dragon Ball Z : Budokai Tenkaichi will always have a special place in my heart , if only out of respect (and nostalgia) for long nights with my cousins, particularly my first sleepless night.

 

About 5 hours into Kingdom Come: Deliverance.

It’s not for everyone. It’s not flashy and in some areas it feels like the poor man’s Witcher.

That said, I love it. It’s a niche game in many respects but the atmosphere and attention to historical detail has really pulled me in.

It’s like a more personalized version of Mount and Blade.

All in all, a good investment.

 

I'm holding off on that game because I keep hearing about bugs. I'm also hearing they seem to be actively trying to patch them, so I'm hopeful in a few weeks/months it'll be worth picking up.

 

Just watched a few trailers and this looks fantastic. Next payday I'm definitely picking this up.

 

A little further in and it is a bit buggy. My pc runs the Witcher 3 smoothly but this game has glitches and slow frame rate at times which can be frustrating. I do hope that gets fixed bc it’s a fun and challenging game so far

 

I've been playing Divinity: Original Sin 2. It's... fine. I finished the first one when that one came out, and most of the reasons I didn't like that one are still present in this one. It's mostly mechanic stuff, like I don't like the skill or stat systems. And the combat system is annoying, because if you roll higher on initiative, you just have to spend your whole turn getting close enough to attack, so then the enemy attacks you first, so if you just spend your time buffing or setting up, then you might as well just go second anyways. It's very counter intuitive. That's problems with both of the games. But, overall, it's still pretty fun. It's fun, but it's nowhere in the same league as the 20 year old Baldur's Gate. And that's interesting, because Divinity 2: Ego Draconis on the console falls into the same sort of trap, in that's it's decently fun, but still overshadowed by the Baldur's Gate console games.

It also makes my computer overheat, which literally no other game has managed so far.

 

Divinity Original 2 is fantastic because unlike Divinity Original Sin 1, the story is actually compelling.

The mechanics are fun but get a bit samey unless you seriously mod it with more classes, shit like that. I think I have a good 50 from the workshop alone.

 

I'm holding off for the same reason, and because it's like all that and still $60. @Arthellion - If the bugs are fixed, do you think it's worth it?

 

Yeah the guys at r/mountandblade and the respective discord have been going crazy about it, specially since Warband is taking its sweet time to get here.
I'm gonna wait for a sale or maybe for Warband (fingers crossed for the release date to be sometime this year :v ).

 

Wait so is it like Mount and Blade?

I sort of skipped it because a couple of the reviews made it sound like witcher, but a terrible story and full of bugs.

 

If fixed, I’d say so. But I’m a history major and adore the attention to realism.

Those less inclined will probably better be served by waiting for a sail.
--- Post automerged ---

Combat is like Mount and Blade. As is gold, armor, etc.

Open world story is more like the Witcher.

Go into the game expecting something more like mount and blade as opposed to the witcher

 

I've heard rather horrible things about the bugs from a lot of people with Kingdom. Enough that I'm super wary. That along with a 20 gb patch on day one to fix stuff isn't really encouraging.

 

Seems like the trend these days is that the consumer are the beta testers. Like, buying a game in the first three months always seems super risky, but by the time most of the bugs are gone and the game is playable in a normal fashion, everyone has already moved on to the next thing.

 

It started as a kick starter

Not a triple aaa company by any means

 

That's Bethesda's business model in a nutshell, yes.

It's slightly more forgivable in the case of Kingdom Come though, as it was a fairly ambitious project made by an indie studio and primarily crowd-funded. It's unfortunate that there's all the bugs there, but I wasn't expecting much else, given the sheer scope of the project and the size of the team working on it. There's certainly an argument to be made that they should have gone for a slightly less ambitious vision, but eh.

 

Or simply published this as an Early Access/Beta-Version. I have my issues with them but I think that those new types of publishing would be ideally suited for a project (and indeed some AAA titles with similar bug-plagued launches) like this, at least from a consumer experience standpoint.

From a marketing/sales standpoint I suspect that doing so might sadly clash with the current focus on those large initial sales and marketing campaigns.
--- Post automerged ---
I am not sure if this is the right thread for it but I think it fits into it. Extra Credit has in the last few weeks done a few videos about the whole "60$ game" and different monetization methods and the reasoning behind them. And while I have to admit that I while I don't necessarily agree with them I still find them interesting and worth watching. What I have a big problem with is one of the key statements in the last video about Lootboxes where they both argued that we don't know anywhere near enough about possible negative effects of said Lootbox systems while at the same time arguing that they should be used/accepted as a legitimate method of monetization if done "right". Am I the only who thinks that this is a contradictory statement since by their own admission we actually don't know how Lootboxes affect people, so how exactly could you make a decision about what makes a good Lootbox system?

I mean to that approach is like the medical industry deciding to use untested medicaments till they are proven to be dangerous/ineffective instead of doing it the other way around. Wouldn't the correct course of action be to test the effects of something like Lootboxes before you implement them globally?