Recent comments in /f/gaming

Majestic-Iron7046 t1_jckann1 wrote

Cyberpunk gets violent most of the time but you can play non-lethal often, i didn't finish it yet so i don't know exactly but i don't think this approach is rewarded.

Dishonored is probably the best you can get about this thing.

Generally a lot of games focused on stealth can give you the non-lethal approach, if you are into classic go Metal Gear Solid 3 Snake Eater, there even is a boss that you don't even need to shoot at to win.

1

MajinBuuMan t1_jck9via wrote

But you don't have to play them all and each one can be played by itself.

1 introduces it all.

2 is an entirely separate scenario and you really don't need to understand what happened in 1. It adds to Claire's backstory, but the ingame documents tell you what you need to know. If you want the details then go play 1.

And same with 3. It's all about Nemesis. The mansion doesn't really matter unless you want to know the details of Jill before that game.

It shares an overarching mythos, but you can play the games in any order because they focus on their individual storyline above all else and will fill you in on details you need to know in the documents.

1

RegularWhiteShark t1_jck9v8d wrote

The only lethal power is devouring swarm. There’s blood thirsty and shadow kill which aid you in a lethal approach but don’t actually kill themselves.

There’s weapon upgrades, I suppose. But the crossbow upgrades are for non-lethal approaches as well with the sleep darts.

The game absolutely doesn’t want you to kill. It wants you to play how you like.

13

brian11e3 t1_jck9lhk wrote

Payday 2 has missions that give bonus cash for completing them without being spotted.

You get penalized for killing civilians. You can order them on the ground, zip tie them, and put them in an area out of the way. You have a limited number of zip ties.

You can kill guards, but you then have to answer their radio to keep dispatch from getting suspicious and calling the cops. If you kill more than three guards, they get suspicious weather you answer the radio or not.

If you kill someone, you need to bag the body and toss in a place where it will not be seen. Otherwise, witnesses will alert the cops and everyone on the map. You have a limited number of body bags.

The game isn't violence free, but it keeps the violence to a minimum if you want the bonuses from being quiet.

2

SpiderPidge t1_jck8t81 wrote

I have NO idea why the series is getting the hate it's getting in the comment. NO IDEA. The overall story is great and it is absolutely worth going back and playing 0, 1 Remake, and up to 4 (in my opinion you should play 0, 1 Remake, 2 Remake or 2, original 3, Code Veronica, and 4). If you want to skip 5 and 6 it's okay because 7 and 8 don't really call back to 5 and 6. Chris is in 7 and 8 but the only passing reference to the other two games is him punching the boulder in 5.

But to your question, it's not extremely important to play the other games to enjoy 4. It has a standalone story, for the most part. If anything you would just need to play 2 or 2remake.

7 and 8 are, again, a complete story (waiting for 9 to finish the Winters' story) and you don't really need the other games.

But you are missing out if you don't play the other games. The full story is excellent if you take the time and effort to do it. But it's not necessary.

2

BlueMikeStu t1_jck8ib0 wrote

At this point, it is but it isn't.

They're basically like a James Bond movie or The Fast and the Furious series. Past events have an impact on current events and there's a rotating cast of core characters who make up the main gang of the protagonists, but the games also do a good job of being self-contained, standalone adventures which explain the who, what, and when all of the characters in a given game matter to new players so they don't miss out.

The only real exception to this is Resident Evil 6, which was designed as a huge, Avengers-like mega game which brought back the entire cast for a huge spectacle of continuity, ruined by the fact that it's one of the worst in the series, and easily the worst game which is an official, numbered sequel instead of being a spin-off.

If you've got time, they're still worth playing. I'd even recommend giving the original originals and not the remakes a try if you think you won't be bothered by the graphics, because there are some things that the originals do better than the remakes.

2

Dont_have_a_panda t1_jck6ka4 wrote

Non violent dishonored? Really? I mean you can complete the Game without kills thats how you get the best ending, but the Game WANTS you to kill, almost all upgrades and gadgets are for violent kills and almost nothing to hide and/or escape, almost as if the non violent requirements were an aftertought

−15

allvarr t1_jck66k2 wrote

If you're looking at playing RE4:Remake, only RE2:Remake is relevant as it is essentially Leon's "backstory" in regards to RE4:R.

You don't "need" to play it to understand what's going on, but it might help you enjoy the story more.

RE8:Village is a direct sequel to RE7 however, those two you might want to play in their chronological order.

The rest of the RE games are wildly scattered in terms of story.

1

lexilogo t1_jck3umi wrote

No. The plot of RE is essentially episodic and simple enough that you really don't need to understand past game's continuity to keep up, and the plot itself is cheesy B-movie mania that almost never tries to deliver super serious plot points. All you need to know is Umbrella are an evil corporation that make and sell bioweapons.

It's an especially silly reason not to play 7/8, as those two entries are even more standalone. You can count the direct links to past games in 7 on one hand

19