alanschu

Agree with Volourn on this one.

Ethan Moreau with a lazer beam for the GWG. Go Oil!

I just ran up and let some dude with a tranquilizer shoot me. Here's a video: test.wmv

I've played the demo of FEAR, but that was a while ago. What sort of AI differences existed in that game?

My bad on the pistol shots. Headshots do seem to kill, at least from close range. Though I could take a body shot. However, I took zero damage from the impact of the tranquilizer darts. I had to let it drain my health away.

I will go and test this right now.

I figured I'd join Kor Qel Droma up here in the igloos

Can't the OE guys play over the LAN? I'm surprised there's lag issues. Though I have no idea what it takes to host numerous people on those games though. I haven't looked at the server yet, but perhaps a switch to 16 players if it hasn't already been done? I tend to prefer the smaller maps anyways as it's more infantry mayhem, which I find the most fun :D Exams will be over tomorrow, so hopefully I'll find a way to introduce you to my friend Mr. Abrams :D

AIIIIEEEE!!!

Need more resources for better AI. Unfortunately they're going towards graphics I remember the Electronic Arts representative that spoke at my school mentioned that with the upcoming generation of games they expect, as a percentage of total resources, the amount allocated towards AI to go DOWN. Now this still means an absolute increase, as there's more total resources to go around. But it's still disheartening

I don't recall the patch making a difference, but it's been soooo long since I've played it without the patch. Tranquilizers anywhere don't = instant death. They poison you and you slowly lose health on your body. I guarantee you that you can still take pistol shots to the head on realistic though. I doubly guarantee you that you can survive headshots from the assault rifle, which has a ridiculously low base damage (3 I think). I've gone into many fights without the buffs against weaker weapons and sustained damage to the head. I don't know if Deus Ex took range into consideration (it is an older game), and I doubt if it reduced damage for glancing shots. The sniper areas were tough though, but the game's AI is less than stellar, which gives you ample time to get away before they even recognize you (this is based on distance however). The dumb AI is probably a "good" thing though.....if they could see as well as we can, it'd be impossible to play the game from a sneaking perspective. I find this to be the norm in all "sneaking" type games: In MGS the enemies have particulaly short and narrow vision cones. Deus Ex the badguys have better hearing than they do vision. Thief is the same way. Splinter Cell is probably the "best" for the AI noticing you, as it has a distance to observability measure. You can be in brighter areas farther away, but in bright light you'll always be spotted if he's looking at you. However, they don't recognize silhouettes, as you can be in a completely "dark" area, with bright all around you, and never be spotted. I wonder how enjoyable these games would be though if the AI passed the Turing test.

I agree with your stance in online gaming, and really enjoy the medic class in BF2 in particular (as it's possible to still do something even when the guy dies....I love running around with the defibrilators! :D). However, in single player you still run into the situation where what happens if the medic dies? Or do you just make him invulnerable? And if so, does that really change anything?

Headshot/Bodyshot only equal dead with some weapons though. Typically the sniper rifle and the MJ12 commandos. Even on the "realistic" mode of Deus Ex, you can still survive a shot to the face from a pistol. And you only walked slower if you had both of your legs shot out (which put you into a permanent crouch). However, I typically play those games in a sneaking manner, and even then there is a wide variety of ways for a player to prevent one-shot headshots/bodyshots given the buffs and armor and whatnot you can utilize. However, it's a specific difficulty level, and approrpiately the hardest difficulty. I agree that they are different style games though. "Realism" in that game is a bit bizarre though, as who really knows how a nano-augmented person really acts

Those Wendy's burgers are hypnotic!

The thing is, those "grazing" hits typically aren't shrugged off. Nor are "shots to non-vital areas" things you just ignore. Come on, you wanted realism here right? Shot to arm = incapacitated = game over. Shot to leg = not walking = incapacitated = game over. You're the one that wanted the realism based on some bizarre "ruleset" that the majority of FPS games never adhere to. Soldiers don't get shot in non-vital areas and go "hey, I was shot in a non-vital area, I guess I'll keep on going on this wounded leg." Furthermore, what consitutes a "non-vital" area? If you get shot in the leg, you better hope you didn't take one in your femoral artery. Perhaps you'd like to simulate the agonizing moments of your soldier screaming for his mother has he takes a fatal wound that slowly kills him, and there's nothing the player nor any of the NPCs can do about it? And you'd like this to be the default difficulty setting, with somehow more difficult settings past this?

For the record I don't think that normal should be realistic I think people would realize just how "unfun" that truly is. Most games that offer a "realistic" setting aren't realistic either...it's just much tougher.

I like Arrested Development. I love how the "next on" segments have the most bizarre extrapolations of plot sequences ever, and they rarely actually happen on the next show :D

Fortunately, as with most things discussed in life and video games, you are wrong and everyone realizes it. Thank god you aren't the one calling the shots for video games. Just because it's your warped view of the way things "should" be, doesn't make other people fans of "dumb" games for recognizing it for what it is. The original FPS games weren't 1 shot 1 kill on normal, and they shouldn't start now, unless specifically mandated like Rainbow 6 (which even then wasn't always one shot one kill, and afforded other non-realistic devices like heartbeat sensors to assist the game player).

How do you make something more difficult than full on realistic, one shot one kill for the normal, default settings. You just said "oh make it harder, you take more damage and the AI is smarter and stuff." That's a piss poor explanation. If playing CoD on Normal means one shot one kill, you think that the game will be significantly more difficult if they just "up the AI" a little bit? I guarantee you it would be a lesson in frustration and I doubt that you would even play the game. Imagine trying to play your Halo with one shot one kill. I'm sure you'd have loads of fun. Does this mean that you're a fan of "dumb" gameplay? But hey, I'm a fan of "dumb" gameplay I guess.

But but but, normal difficulty should be lifelike realism!!! To want anything else is to want dumb games!

Yes, clearly I want "dumb" games. Furthermore, understanding that people don't want "realism = normal difficulty" Realism in games != "smart." But since you took the "high-road" and decided to leave me with an insult, good on you then..... Besides, how do you make that more difficult.

In my war games, I've come to grips with the fact that sometimes I must sacrifice a few for the good of the many. Having said that, I still hate taking casualities in them though. I make sure that each soldier lost results in 10 of their soldiers lost

If Normal is realsitic, how do you make it any more difficult? I mean, 1 shot to kill you on normal. What, get breathed on to die at a higher difficulty level? The definition of "normal" is fine, based on the precedent of what "normal" is by other video games. Normal != realistic. Normal = normal.

I didn't like Pacfic Assault's spawning badguys. You could be looking right at a bush checking it and making sure it's clear, only to turn around and suddenly a guy is stabbing you in the back because he has magically appeared out of thin air.

Just to make sure it's clear, normal should not equal realistic. I'm sure people would rather play Call of Duty, rather than reinact a realistic WW2 simulator which has you die 20 seconds into the first mission. To be blunt, I think that "normal = how it should be in real life" is one of the more bogus things I've read here in a long time. People play games to have fun. If you want a more "realistic" WW2 experience, play on a harder difficulty level......or enlist. Furthermore, normal difficulty is never like that, outside of Tom Clancy games which make it their purpose to be realistic. To claim that that is how it should be based on the "ruleset" despite the precedents set by many, many games before it is silly. Besides, it's not possible for it to be "realistic" because there is no way to instill the fear of death. We as game players still stick our heads up to fire a shot at the enemy despite mountains of suppression fire. Our accuracy is completely unhindered in the face of explosions and gunfire whizzing past our head. The one thing I like about the regenerating health is that it eliminates the situations where, as I experienced on occassion with the original CoD, I finish a battle with a sliver of health with no medpacks in the vicinity. There's no point in me even continuing on in the mission because I was as good as dead in the next encounter anyways. Especially since I was playing on the hardest difficulty. I remember Pavlov's house was me literally hiding in a corner watching the only two ways into the room I was in because there was no way I was moving out as I was getting my ass shot off. I ignored the tanks because they were killing me too quickly, and just tried to stay out of sight (this situation actually is not historically accurate...Pavlov mounted the anti-tank rifles on the roof of the building so that the tanks could not bring their main guns up to shoot them.....however this would have made those situations less exciting). Anyways...