alanschu

Machine Musket jubblies? How did I miss those!?

Ahahaha I was going to put No Remorse but it was more memorable for the wrong reasons haha.

LISP would be far more lethal.

Off the top of my head: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGGui9fvZPM While I enjoyed most of these at the time (my first game with a sound card), there was something about this scene, in particular, that made me truly realize how badass Vader was (2:47): http://youtu.be/R78l7v3DqkM?t=2m47s

Speaking purely speculatively, but I'd probably put it up with licensing issues (i.e. it's hard to get, or has restrictions a game dev may not care for).

I guess it comes down to semantics, but IMO Olympic athletes are not "good" at their sport. They are exceptional at it. I think most of us here can appreciate that gains from exercise tend to go up logarithmically. Yes, you will rarely get people that are 200m hurdle runners and a hammer thrower, but that's in large part because to become the best (a far cry from "good") at any of those sports, they're going to need to spend 1000% more time squeaking out 1% improvement in performance, whereas I can spend 1/100th the time in the gym preparing at both of those sports and see significant improvements in both of them, because currently I wouldn't say that I am that good at either. If "mediocre at everything" means "pretty much above average in everything, and likely not be an insignificant amount" then I wouldn't consider that a bad thing at all. If someone does exercise for the health benefits, I do think that they do themselves a disservice by focusing on specific disciplines.

So true. I have seen a fair number of my women friends/acquaintances refuse to lift weights because they are afraid of bulking up.

Coworkers and I typically play most lunches. Had some fun flanking a hillside of infantry in an LAV with a few waves of Zuni Rockets!

Kerr still had the best percentage all time after 92-93, so it's not like the shorter line for two seasons was a significant issue IMO (though it did let him post some 50%+ seasons). Kerr's biggest advantage is that he was a role player who didn't have the ball in his hands much, so he typically had time to set and shoot. Agreed wholeheartedly that Curry's shots tend to be more covered, and that the volume is impressive.

While it could be a difference of scale, I think it's also just an example of how people are pretty prone to hyperbole. I mean, a game that gets, say, 6/10 for a review is a game that "sucks" when I'd consider it "okay."

40% from 3 is still very good. It's more than 1 point per shot for those shots. Battle of the knees!

It helped them get to the finals and they would have won the championship had Pop not made a rare (for him) coaching blunder by keeping a blazing hot Duncan out at the end of game 6. Besides, the Thunder have a back to back. Resting key players during the front end, if the opportunity presents itself (and being up 30 through 3 quarters is as opportunity as opportunity gets), gives them a better chance to win the back end of the back to back. It's less about rest and more about injury, really (it's not like KD is a mid 30s Jordan that needs his knees iced after every game). If KD were to get hurt in a game that no longer meant anything because they had already won, there'd be major egg on everyone's face.

To be fair, you suggested that it might be essential when you framed the statement as being one that does not take gambles on games with male only protagonists.

I had some buddies from a different game that had a squadron going. Tried to drag me into IL2. They were adamant on playing on "full realism" only. I could barely get off the ground and was basically of no use airborne—and this was in coop missions (which were otherwise fckn awesome), vs the AI. From what I understand, the game is a sim's sim, the flight model being especially accurate, with different types of aircraft handling closely to historical reports. So good luck to you sir... It certainly is a sim's sim, though I don't pull on full realism myself (tweaking the trim to counter turn the engine's torque and stuff I don't care so much for, nor the micromanagement of the radiator and stuff like that). I was stalling out like crazy but am doing much better now. I'm a pitiful bomber, but can at least shoot down the odd plane here or there (watched some tutorial videos).

A power that lets them see through walls simply reframes what the gameplay is specifically about. It can also be a game mechanic that directly compensates for the deficiencies that the player may have compared to the game. Stating that it deals directly with the player is irrelevant, since ultimately all things still deal directly with the player since ultimately the player is still driving the input and formulating the decisions, even in the event of character skill. If the game is going to attempt to do anything to ensure character skill is recognized, it's nigh impossible to do so in a meaningful way without communicating that directly to the player. Having said that, if it's simply an "in game cheat button" then it would seem like the obvious solution would be "don't ever use it." Or is this a situation where a game developer needs to protect players from themselves? Because if you suggest that the inclusion of the ability is required to play the game, then that means that the game would not be the same if the feature did not exist. It would have to be designed differently. I already detailed how it changes Batman's encounters from "be perceptive and make sure that you don't miss where a hostile is located" to "examine the hostiles and the immediate surroundings, formulate a plan and attempt to execute it." Note that despite all this, I still died on numerous occasions. It means it's framing the encounters and the mindset of the player onto something else. It's also a means of conveying information to the player within the context of the game's setting. Unfortunately, to continue using Batman as an example, there's going to be issues with conveying information as to what areas batman can quickly grapple to, which walls are destructible, and what objects are actually interactive, due to the nature of 3D game world design. This problem is compounded as graphical fidelity goes up. While you may disagree, I do not feel that requiring trial and error for the player to learn which walls can be destroyed, or whether that statue is one that the game engine supports Batman grappling towards and hanging inverted, is a positive feature. This doesn't mean that having stuff like this is superior, or that every game that has this is just as well served with its inclusion. I hear that something like this is going to be included in Thief, which is a setting where it may not make much sense. Even then, with respect to looking through walls and whatnot, gamers have been able to exploit this since the beginning of games and it's hardly a new feature of the gaming world. Top down views give players omniscient clairvoyance in Metal Gear Solid, while camera manipulation lets the player look around walls and know where characters are that Sam Fisher shouldn't know about either. This seems more like a fidelity issue, where as games become more realistic looking, some gamers are less willing to accept some of the gameplay mechanics that provide the game player with a degree of information that they otherwise may not have. I'm curious if Pac-man, if down entirely from a first person perspective, would face scrutiny if we could still see the ghosts through the walls. EDIT: (my thoughts are a bit scattered all over as I wrote this while doing other stuff, but would it be different if the games were unchanged, but actually required an explicit cheat code to enable those view modes?)

One thing about features like that is that it could be argued that it compensates for the in game character (i.e. Batman) being simply much more adept at spotting things than the game player. I find the inclusion of it to be analogous to "player skill" vs "character skill" debates in RPGs. I'm pretty indifferent to the feature, and don't really care if it is or is not included in games. Although I disagree with the notion that enemies won't ever surprise you (unless I'm just terribad at games...) simply on the basis of the inclusion of this mechanic. One positive is that this mechanic (especially in Batman) can really help the player get the lay of the land, and come up with creative (and fun) tactics/strategies to deal with the impending challenge. When you successfully execute the plan and it works out, players get enjoyment. The more badass/risky the plan, the greater the high (in my experience).

I think it's a lot of unfamiliarity with the complexities of development. It can be easy to say, and even logically conclude, that a particular feature may be easy to implement, but that often isn't the case. Sometimes things are a lot easier than expected, but often they are more complicated than expected. And that's from the people more familiar with the actual code base.

I have no interest in WWII planes, but call me if you ever get DCS, especially the A-10C Details! Campaign? Co-op? Etc. etc. etc.

I'm not following this statement. Wouldn't XP for killing be more along these lines, rather than no XP for killing? I am not seeing how this is an incentive to not fight.

If anyone may have an interest in doing some MP in a game like IL-2 Sturmovik, let me know. During the current sale I may even gift said game! Reading the manual (which seems to be from Pacific Fighters, which I think I tried way back in the day) they mention an "Online Campaign" where the air missions can influence the results on the ground, which sounded interesting. Though standard co-op (or even vs. dogfighting) would be interesting. It should be noted that I'm probably not very good at this game (yet....) so I'm sure there will be a period of "Dammit Allan stop sucking!" This game seems much more hardcore than I have really ever played in the past, but it sounds like it could be fun to play with some friends!

I just picked up IL-2 Sturmovik: 1946 on the GOG sale. Will give it a try this weekend probably.

Infinite

Eh, Game of Thrones is super popular. I wouldn't be surprised if the fact that the player is an active participant influences whether or not this type of thing is more important. I typically play a variation of a self-insert when I have the ability to create a custom character. Fortunately I have a lot of opportunities. If someone sees a game that is otherwise interesting, but has some features missing (whatever those features may be) that they find important, it's their prerogative to share that request. I'm not sure it is any different than asking for a different feature, barring maybe that it comes up a lot and some people find that annoying. In general I'm actually not a fan of specific stretch goals. It's hard to quantify this because someone may or may not have contributed because of the cross-platform support out of the gate. My problem with specific stretch goals is that it comes across as somewhat binding, and I have concerns that it could handcuff development to include a feature that ultimately not be good for the game, but wasn't known until later in development. Chasing rabbit holes is always a huge risk. It's a double edged sword though, because I definitely feel that stretch goals help increase cash flow.