Jump to content

Hell Kitty

Members
  • Posts

    2270
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Hell Kitty

  1. Kind of a minor point here, but anyone else annoyed that they started changing the cover designs? It ruins the whole set look I was wanting. Or am I the only guy bothered by that kind of thing? :/

     

    No, you aren't the only one. I hate it when they do that.

     

    I wish to join your club. I'm fussy about covers in general though. I recently bought this version of Blade Runner over this cheaper version, not because of any difference in special features, but because it had a better cover.

     

    I haven't read any George R.R. Martin books, but that will change as I just ordered this box set (though not from Amazon).

  2. I admit that I'm not as familiar with FPS as other genres, but I recall that linear design has always been around. Is there really more of it now?

     

    Probably not, no.

     

    If Call of Duty and it's imitators were the only modern FPS games then perhaps the image from the OP link might have a point, though it would probably be better to compare a map of an old game with a map from an actual modern game, rather than the silly pic they used.

  3. it sounds silly, but a lot less silly than just saying, he's so sneaky, as long as he is in a shadow he is totally invisible!

     

    Personally I prefer devs not try to come up with an in-universe explanation of a game rule.

  4. However, stealth games seem to be based on quite a delicate balance to drive players attention away from the absurdity.

     

    Not really. In the shadow stealth system of Thief and Splinter Cell, the darker the shadow the less visible you are, and in the darkest shadow you can stand right in front of someone and they won't see you because you are completely invisible. That we are more accepting of certain gameplay elements doesn't make them any less absurd. See: health packs vs health regen.

     

    this along with the fact, that his buddies will never miss him and become alerted because one of them is missing, is probably my biggest problem with stealth games.

     

    That's odd, because it's fairly common for enemies to notice missing buddies in stealth games.

     

    Oh, and I love both MGS and Splinter Cell series.

  5. I found your post lacked concrete examples considering the list of games you must have played.

     

    Still confused. Lack of concrete examples? Of what? Are you referring to this:

     

    No more than having a convenient crosshair to tell me where my bullets go while shooting from the hip; or being able to carry around more weapons, ammo and items then is physically possible; or the game being paused while I heal myself from the status screen; or...

     

    Because those are all things from the original DX, not to mention a billion other games.

  6. I've explained fairly clearly why I don't understand the need for this

    The problem is that you seem to think devs include a feature because they need to, that an element is included only because it is necessary. EM and ISA didn't include a perspective shift because they needed to, they did it because they wanted to. Why? Why not? The EM devs have said they think it's cool to be able to see your character. They first used the feature in R6:V, and obviously they liked it and decided to use it again.

     

    Sawyer already explained why he likes it. There is never going to be a single reason to include this or any other feature that's going to satisfy everyone and allow them to understand its inclusion. First person in conversation or third person? There is no right answer. Its like trying to understand why other people like to eat food you don't like. It's just different tastes and opinions.

     

    I'm asking why people think it's a good design choice and you're being overly defensive for some reason.

     

    I'm not defending anything, I'm attacking your labeling of a feature as unnecessary when necessity has nothing to do with it's inclusion.

     

    I'm not...as receptive...to control of the camera being jerked away from me randomly in gameplay when I should have proper control and interaction.

     

    There is nothing random about it, it's entirely player controlled. You do have proper control and interaction, because the camera switch only occurs when you, the player, press a button to make it occur.

  7. HK, you must have played video games many more than I do and you just have these over-generalizations. :)

    In any case, I don't think it is wise to make (ex-)Ubi team a game such as S.T.A.L.K.E.R. or Thief and vice versa. For some mechanisms just work in their own schemes. Since Deus Ex series have always been TP game, I think the team is one of the most desirable choices...at least for the game-play wise.

    This post baffles and confuses me.

     

    I think the feature is unnecessary because it just seems like cover based shooting and takedowns can be done in first person without the need for a perspective shift

    Of course the cover shooting and takedowns in DX:HR could be done in first person, just as all the conversations in DX could have been in first person instead of switching to third. Was is necessary that Eidos Montreal or Ion Storm Austin design their games this way? Of course not, there is no need for a perspective shift in either game, but that's the way the devs did it. Games are chock full of "unnecessary" elements, but people tend only to label the elements they dislike in that way, and I think it's a poor criticism.

     

    looks disorientating

    Do you find entering third person conversations in DX disorientating? If not, why not? What is different about pressing a button to enter a conversation and pressing a button to enter cover? The camera position changes in both, but when entering cover at least you still have control of the camera.

  8. Isn't that...sort of cheating?

    No more than having a convenient crosshair to tell me where my bullets go while shooting from the hip; or being able to carry around more weapons, ammo and items then is physically possible; or the game being paused while I heal myself from the status screen; or...

     

    and quite unnecessary

    Well no, [that feature you don't like] isn't necessary, but then neither is [that feature. you do like]. The whole damn game is unnecessary. The folks at EM could be doing far more productive things with their lives, though personally I'm happy they're not. :)

  9. Even the original purchaser cant play the game more than once. Wow.

     

    That's not quite right. You can replay as many times as you like but your scores and any levels, characters, weapons and whatever else that you unlock will be permanently unlocked.

     

    Was about to post this. Still a ****ty move. Then again, I am not surprised Capcom did this. They did some stupid **** for Bionic Commando Rearmed 2 and Final Fight Double Impact for PSN. You have to be online to play.

     

    But you wouldnt be able to perform any saves during that second run, right? So every subsequent run after the first would have to be a full playthrough from start to finish without saves?

     

    RE: Mercenaries is an arena shooter, it doesn't have a single player storyline as such to play through, so it isn't a game you save in. It's basically a full game of the Mercenaries mini-game mode in RE 4 & 5. You pick a character and a level, and then you run around killing as many zombies as possible. The more you kill the more your time extends, and you can acquire bonus items that do the same thing. You replay levels to beat your own score and unlock new levels and characters.

  10. It's hard to decide whether to blame them, the michael bays of the world..or the fact that

     

    you're finally turning just that damned old...

     

    When you start saying things like "Kids today just don't appreciate [insert thing you think is important] because all they care about is [insert thing you hold in contempt]." then yeah, the problem is not the the kids.

     

    it's beyond their ability to understand what it was when it was originally released.

     

    No it's not. Kids today are exactly the same as kids at any other time. They aren't going to think of something as important just because you want them to or say they should. You need to educate them. Of course I suspect people are more interested in complaining about those damn kids then they are in having those kids actually understand the importance of a particular title in the history of gaming.

     

    Part of it, is just that great games, and other things, are highly influential and they get copied so much that within a few years the original great game seems like nothing special because hundreds of games have copied everything it did.

     

    I remember someone on these forums asking why Dead Space wasn't as praised as Resident Evil 4 considering they're so similar, which of course ignores that Resident Evil is a much loved and rather long series and RE4 was a title that brought new life to the series, whereas DS was a game that owed a lot to RE4.

     

    Ignorance of gaming history isn't limited to kids. Let's not forget that terribly embarrassing thread here not that long ago where someone asked "Can games do comedy?", which of course requires one to be ignorant of the plethora of comedy games that exist.

×
×
  • Create New...