The Soldier seems the best to me, because canon Shepard is a soldier. So it seems logical to do what canon Shepard does. Going canonical, so to speak. I really like writing "canon", because you see so many fucktards online spelling it "cannon" while talking about Star Trek or Star Wars, it's really annoying. So it's empowered to spell it "canon" because that's how it's supposed to be spelled. Canon.
Also, the Soldier gets to use the assault rifle, which is probably the best gun in the game. Ya know, it fires really rapidly, has a pretty good range, and looks nice. Good all-rounder.
Lastly, the Soldier from ME1 had Immunity, the best ability ever. It pretty much made you invulnerable. I really enjoyed using Immunity and soaking up tons of damage. Now there doesn't seem to be any Immunity in ME2. But I'm gonna go and find out if that is indeed the case. Maybe we're wrong and Immunity is in ME2. Or maybe it got changed into another ability and actually got an improvement. Or maybe it's gone and I'll find out and get really pissed off and write up my thoughts on its loss. So we'll see. We'll see indeed.
BTW, they showed the first 12 minutes of ME2 on Gamespot. Apparently, you'll be able to collect spaceship models to display on a wall in your ready room. Spaceship models are awesome. Cause in a tense dramatic moment, Shepard could get really pissed off and throw his assault rifle around, knocking the spaceship models to the ground. And then Miranda Lawson will reach down and pick one up and go "You broke your little ships."
Showing posts with label gaming. Show all posts
Showing posts with label gaming. Show all posts
Monday, May 10, 2010
Army of Two the 40th Day demo impressions
I just played it solo with two controllers plugged in. Kinda annoying that the people behind the demo force you to do that. I mean, they must know that most people aren't going to have a buddy sitting right next to em conveniently. So all it does is force everyone to play it using two controllers. Really retarded, if you think about.
On normal, it seemed really easy. I was just killing all the enemies by myself. Never felt much of a need for a second player. Weapons loadout menu is pretty interesting, there are a fuckton of options available for customization.
Graphics looked really nice. Seems like it'll be a good purchase even without the co-op.
On normal, it seemed really easy. I was just killing all the enemies by myself. Never felt much of a need for a second player. Weapons loadout menu is pretty interesting, there are a fuckton of options available for customization.
Graphics looked really nice. Seems like it'll be a good purchase even without the co-op.
My list of issues with Arkham Asylum
1. Boss Fights Sucked.
2. Gargoyles a bit too convenient, grappling mechanic felt too automatic, no finesse involved.
3. Hollow gameplay sections: Courtyard filled with killing dozens and dozens of plant pods (that shoot plasma balls WTF?) by crouching and pressing a button to initiate the canned animation. And hopefully you enjoy that canned animation of him punching into and then ripping open the pod, splattering the fake camera with plant blood, because it's gonna be the same every single fucking time. Which is really boring after the 3rd time. Nevermind the 20th.
4. Gameplay length seems low, if you compare it to some other games released. If you compare it to Modern Warfare 2's length though, it seems pretty great. So that's really hard to say. Coming off of a run of Dragon Age or Borderlands or AC2, it's undoubtedly going to seem a bit short. You really have to judge if the quality of the experience is enough to make up the difference.
There's no real replayability though. It's not linear in the sense that it's a straight line, there are hub areas involved, so you'll have to backtrack and encounter the same areas but with different conditions. But all in all, the campaign's gonna be exactly the same. The only replayability might be in getting higher scores in the Danger Rooms. Wait, Danger Rooms are the rooms in X-Men. What are they called, hazard rooms? Challenge rooms? The challenge is in getting higher scores, but I just played em once each and had enough. It only served to remind me that these sections were taken from the campaign and that there was a lot more to do because you weren't confined inside a room.
5. Other then that, the one big aesthetic detail that I really disliked was what I had been kvetching about for the longest time... before the game, during the game, and now after the game: Batman's walking animation looks retarded. He's just walking like a stiff robot that's maybe a little bit constipated? It just looks bad, man. Seriously, fix that animation. He looks great when he's moving while crouched, but we're all too damn lazy to hold down the crouch button all the time. And when we aren't running, we have to walk. And Batman looks awful doing it. It was a bad jig to begin with, we never should have started this jig. It was a bad jig, a terrible terrible jig.
Arkham Asylum actually didn't have a lot of faults, I enjoyed it quite a bit.
2. Gargoyles a bit too convenient, grappling mechanic felt too automatic, no finesse involved.
3. Hollow gameplay sections: Courtyard filled with killing dozens and dozens of plant pods (that shoot plasma balls WTF?) by crouching and pressing a button to initiate the canned animation. And hopefully you enjoy that canned animation of him punching into and then ripping open the pod, splattering the fake camera with plant blood, because it's gonna be the same every single fucking time. Which is really boring after the 3rd time. Nevermind the 20th.
4. Gameplay length seems low, if you compare it to some other games released. If you compare it to Modern Warfare 2's length though, it seems pretty great. So that's really hard to say. Coming off of a run of Dragon Age or Borderlands or AC2, it's undoubtedly going to seem a bit short. You really have to judge if the quality of the experience is enough to make up the difference.
There's no real replayability though. It's not linear in the sense that it's a straight line, there are hub areas involved, so you'll have to backtrack and encounter the same areas but with different conditions. But all in all, the campaign's gonna be exactly the same. The only replayability might be in getting higher scores in the Danger Rooms. Wait, Danger Rooms are the rooms in X-Men. What are they called, hazard rooms? Challenge rooms? The challenge is in getting higher scores, but I just played em once each and had enough. It only served to remind me that these sections were taken from the campaign and that there was a lot more to do because you weren't confined inside a room.
5. Other then that, the one big aesthetic detail that I really disliked was what I had been kvetching about for the longest time... before the game, during the game, and now after the game: Batman's walking animation looks retarded. He's just walking like a stiff robot that's maybe a little bit constipated? It just looks bad, man. Seriously, fix that animation. He looks great when he's moving while crouched, but we're all too damn lazy to hold down the crouch button all the time. And when we aren't running, we have to walk. And Batman looks awful doing it. It was a bad jig to begin with, we never should have started this jig. It was a bad jig, a terrible terrible jig.
Arkham Asylum actually didn't have a lot of faults, I enjoyed it quite a bit.
Baldur's Gate 2: Not a Fan.
I didn't like Baldur's Gate 2 when I played it. The game practically forces you to pause and micromanage all your party members, and that's just not fun for me. If I want that, I'll go and play a turn-based RTS. That's not what I want from an RPG. I want something like, uh... KOTOR. I'm not gonna say I never paused the game at all in KOTOR, but it was generally in a few key spots, like during a tense boss fight.
The whole pause every two seconds to issue commands to everyone, then unpause to experience one or two seconds of real time combat, then pause again... that shit is just incomprehensible to me. Why would anyone want to do that? That doesn't feel like a game to me. Look, if you like turn based combat like that... then just go all the way and use one of those actual turn-based combat mechanics, like from Persona 4 or the Final Fantasy games. Well, I mean... I've never played a Final Fantasy game, but I figure their turn based combat works like that. Ya know, like Pokemon's combat. It's just all turn based and works fine if that's what you want. But don't give us this bastardized half in, half out schtick. Two seconds of real time combat, followed by a pause and going back to the turn based thing... that's just torture. It doesn't feel good, and if you want real turn based action, it doesn't deliver. Who wants to manually pause every two seconds? It's not what I would consider to be good gameplay, even if it is an old game.
And the isometric view... yuck. Just a terrible choice. Again, something that's fine in an RTS, but feels wrong for an RPG. If I'm some strategic god commanding a hundred different units and mining fucking vespene gas on some outposts... I want that isometric perspective. If I'm role playing as this guy with armor and a sword, talking to people... I don't want that isometric perspective.
Lastly, having a lower armor class is apparently better, which makes no sense.
The whole pause every two seconds to issue commands to everyone, then unpause to experience one or two seconds of real time combat, then pause again... that shit is just incomprehensible to me. Why would anyone want to do that? That doesn't feel like a game to me. Look, if you like turn based combat like that... then just go all the way and use one of those actual turn-based combat mechanics, like from Persona 4 or the Final Fantasy games. Well, I mean... I've never played a Final Fantasy game, but I figure their turn based combat works like that. Ya know, like Pokemon's combat. It's just all turn based and works fine if that's what you want. But don't give us this bastardized half in, half out schtick. Two seconds of real time combat, followed by a pause and going back to the turn based thing... that's just torture. It doesn't feel good, and if you want real turn based action, it doesn't deliver. Who wants to manually pause every two seconds? It's not what I would consider to be good gameplay, even if it is an old game.
And the isometric view... yuck. Just a terrible choice. Again, something that's fine in an RTS, but feels wrong for an RPG. If I'm some strategic god commanding a hundred different units and mining fucking vespene gas on some outposts... I want that isometric perspective. If I'm role playing as this guy with armor and a sword, talking to people... I don't want that isometric perspective.
Lastly, having a lower armor class is apparently better, which makes no sense.
Dragon Age: The Final Assessment.
So, I finished the campaign last night and uh, it was nice. Very satisfying ending. Overall, I like the game a lot. That should be obvious, I've posted quite a bit in this thread. That's cause it's very good. Not a perfect game though. Not a game I can consider as a candidate for GOTY 2009, let's just say. The BioWare signature is definitely all over it, you can feel that same sort of relationship with characters that you got in KOTOR and ME and all that. It's just a very cozy and enjoyable experience, I'd say.
But ya know, there's a few wrong turns as well and I figured I'd just write up my thoughts on that. Quick summary here and uh, maybe there'll be improvements for Dragon Age 2, which I eagerly look forward to.
The graphics in DA aren't so hot. I can't believe I'm living in a world where people are posting that they can't believe they live in a world where the graphics in Dragon Age are considered bad. Like, really? Honestly, this is the year 2009. Dragon Age's graphics are considered bad, because they are bad. You look at video games, and it's clear we've come pretty far. Uncharted 2, Batman Arkham Asylum, Crysis, Gears of War 2, Dead Space, Infamous, Call of Duty 6: Modern Warfare 2, lots of games with great graphics. But ohohoho, you raise your hand and object... those are all action games, not RPGs! Well, alright... that's true. Let's look at RPGs... we've got games like Oblivion, Fallout 3, Mass Effect, all which look much better then Dragon Age. And some of em came out over two years ago. And I'm not certain, but I'm pretty sure Final Fantasy 13 is going to look much better then DA when it comes out sometime next year. I've never played an FF game in my life, and don't intend to pick up FF13, but it's clear to even a dude like me that it looks so much better then what BioWare delivered to us here. So no, it's not crazy to say that DA has some pretty bad visuals.
It's all fine and dandy if you say you're a hardcore RPG player and story-telling and dialogue come first and you don't care about graphics. That's fine, those are your own preferences. But to simply ignore that they are not that great is deluding yourself. It's like buying a used car with some scratches on the paint. You might value great gas mileage and the roomy interior and so the scratches on the paint don't really bother you at all. That's not why you bought the car, it doesn't affect your enjoyment of it. But don't act as if the paintjob is beautiful and flawless while conversing with your next door neighbor. Don't tell him the paint is great. That's escaping into some sort of bizarro world.
The world is changing, I feel. We no longer have to put up with FPSs with nonexistent stories, or RPGs with horrible visuals. What's Fallout 3? It's a first person shooter, but also an RPG. What's Mass Effect? It's a third person shooter, but also an RPG. It's not an either or proposition. Oblivion was an RPG that actually had decent combat for a change. This is a good thing, new games are taking the best elements of each genre and coming up with a really nice hybrid design. So don't give me the old chestnut that because it's an RPG, you shouldn't expect anything in terms of graphics. That doesn't fly anymore. Well, unless it's an indie game, which I don't think DA is. It's a BioWare game, so you're damn right my expectations are gonna be high. They've set a high standard for consistently great RPGs. KOTOR looked great when it came out in 2003. Mass Effect looked great when it came out in 2007. So to me, expecting BioWare stuff to look good isn't exactly going off and battling windmills.
As far as Morrigan goes... I'm kinda amused by all the discussion about her. It's really interesting how some people hate her a lot. I dunno, she was fine for my tastes. It's uh, it's okay if BioWare didn't just give us a retread of Bastila Shan or Liara. I might actually have found that really boring and lame. Morrigan's just different but still kinda alluring and provides a little discord in the party dynamic. Kinda reminds me of Joanna from the BattleTech novels. Ya know, mostly from Robert Thurston's body of work. Some people don't like Joanna cause she's basically a bitch, but a lot of people, including me, really really like her. Not like as in, I'd really like to be her BFF in real life, but we enjoy her as an intriguing literary character. Some people are just not that happy go lucky and they do have to occupy that realm of anti-hero. So yea, Morrigan's kinda... the best at what she does, but what she does isn't very nice? Heh...
Alright, some issues I've got with the game... starting with a MAJOR one. Terrible invisible walls. Dragon Age Origins is astonishingly awful at making any kind of sense with the edges of the levels. You go travel in the Korcari Wilds or the Dalish forests... little shallow ponds are invisible walls. WTF? These four inch deep puddles are able to prevent you from any further exploration? Is it because the plate armor will somehow rust if you dip your feet in em? Okay, another example... go to Ostagar. There are trees four feet apart that will form an impenetrable barrier. Steps that are only two feet high in Orzammar will block your movement. Head into the Deep Roads, and you'll be stopped by an invisible wall about six feet in front of the rockslide it's supposed to represent.
While doing Shale's special quest, you'll have to venture into this... place that I won't really name, so this won't require spoiler tags. But in the location, there are these hot spring pools on the sides of the level with steps leading down to them. You can actually see that the level designers crafted steps, for humans, leading down into these inviting hot spring pools. Why not go down for a little soak? Well, tough shit, cause the invisible walls again won't let you. This isn't some sort of a major gameplay flaw, but rather just kind of a puzzling choice on the part of the BioWare level designers. Why would it be better to actually limit the player in so many ways? Is freedom really so frowned upon? It kinda makes me wonder if they're somehow totalitarian fascists or something. Well, that's kind of a joke, but seriously... what could be harmed by letting the player walk down into a hot spring pool? Or allowing us to walk over tiny little ponds? Or making the trees more crowded in a location so the invisible wall looks like it'd actually impede movement? This is just really sloppy work. Bottom line, they need to be better at making limits for areas. The really strange thing is, I don't believe this bizarre level design issue reared its head at all when I played through KOTOR or Mass Effect. Maybe I forgot about it but... I don't think so. Just seems to happen in DA.
Moving right along... what is up with the loot lag? Sometimes I'll just loot everything after a battle, move on, and then backtrack a little while later and discover some more shimmering bodies. See, that's how I know that loot lag is present in the game. For a singleplayer game, it shouldn't take forever for loot to show up on bodies. Is it really that hardware intensive to process some loot stats that are probably in a small text file? It's just sad that I've encountered so much more loot lag in DA then in an MMO like WoW which has to deal with lag and all sorts of other complications.
The design of encounters in the game can seem very uh, strange and ass backwards. I'll not explain this in great detail, that might spoil something. In some quest situations, you'll have to answer a riddle. If you get it right, hurray. If you get it wrong, you have to fight a demon. Killing the demon gives experience, but just getting the riddle right doesn't. Why the hell would I want to answer it correctly and get no experience? What sort of incentive is that? It's completely counter-intuitive and ridiculous. People are actually punished for answering correctly. Everyone wants to get more XP, this is an RPG after all. Getting a dialogue answer correct should reward the player just as much as getting it wrong, if not more so.
Lastly, what is up with sustains? Most of the sustains work fine, but some are just janky and for no reason. Or they work differently but it's never explained in the description. For example, Rally seems to turn off automatically whenever I enter a new area. Wynne's Vessel of the Spirit has some unknown duration. This is no good.
But ya know, there's a few wrong turns as well and I figured I'd just write up my thoughts on that. Quick summary here and uh, maybe there'll be improvements for Dragon Age 2, which I eagerly look forward to.
The graphics in DA aren't so hot. I can't believe I'm living in a world where people are posting that they can't believe they live in a world where the graphics in Dragon Age are considered bad. Like, really? Honestly, this is the year 2009. Dragon Age's graphics are considered bad, because they are bad. You look at video games, and it's clear we've come pretty far. Uncharted 2, Batman Arkham Asylum, Crysis, Gears of War 2, Dead Space, Infamous, Call of Duty 6: Modern Warfare 2, lots of games with great graphics. But ohohoho, you raise your hand and object... those are all action games, not RPGs! Well, alright... that's true. Let's look at RPGs... we've got games like Oblivion, Fallout 3, Mass Effect, all which look much better then Dragon Age. And some of em came out over two years ago. And I'm not certain, but I'm pretty sure Final Fantasy 13 is going to look much better then DA when it comes out sometime next year. I've never played an FF game in my life, and don't intend to pick up FF13, but it's clear to even a dude like me that it looks so much better then what BioWare delivered to us here. So no, it's not crazy to say that DA has some pretty bad visuals.
It's all fine and dandy if you say you're a hardcore RPG player and story-telling and dialogue come first and you don't care about graphics. That's fine, those are your own preferences. But to simply ignore that they are not that great is deluding yourself. It's like buying a used car with some scratches on the paint. You might value great gas mileage and the roomy interior and so the scratches on the paint don't really bother you at all. That's not why you bought the car, it doesn't affect your enjoyment of it. But don't act as if the paintjob is beautiful and flawless while conversing with your next door neighbor. Don't tell him the paint is great. That's escaping into some sort of bizarro world.
The world is changing, I feel. We no longer have to put up with FPSs with nonexistent stories, or RPGs with horrible visuals. What's Fallout 3? It's a first person shooter, but also an RPG. What's Mass Effect? It's a third person shooter, but also an RPG. It's not an either or proposition. Oblivion was an RPG that actually had decent combat for a change. This is a good thing, new games are taking the best elements of each genre and coming up with a really nice hybrid design. So don't give me the old chestnut that because it's an RPG, you shouldn't expect anything in terms of graphics. That doesn't fly anymore. Well, unless it's an indie game, which I don't think DA is. It's a BioWare game, so you're damn right my expectations are gonna be high. They've set a high standard for consistently great RPGs. KOTOR looked great when it came out in 2003. Mass Effect looked great when it came out in 2007. So to me, expecting BioWare stuff to look good isn't exactly going off and battling windmills.
As far as Morrigan goes... I'm kinda amused by all the discussion about her. It's really interesting how some people hate her a lot. I dunno, she was fine for my tastes. It's uh, it's okay if BioWare didn't just give us a retread of Bastila Shan or Liara. I might actually have found that really boring and lame. Morrigan's just different but still kinda alluring and provides a little discord in the party dynamic. Kinda reminds me of Joanna from the BattleTech novels. Ya know, mostly from Robert Thurston's body of work. Some people don't like Joanna cause she's basically a bitch, but a lot of people, including me, really really like her. Not like as in, I'd really like to be her BFF in real life, but we enjoy her as an intriguing literary character. Some people are just not that happy go lucky and they do have to occupy that realm of anti-hero. So yea, Morrigan's kinda... the best at what she does, but what she does isn't very nice? Heh...
Alright, some issues I've got with the game... starting with a MAJOR one. Terrible invisible walls. Dragon Age Origins is astonishingly awful at making any kind of sense with the edges of the levels. You go travel in the Korcari Wilds or the Dalish forests... little shallow ponds are invisible walls. WTF? These four inch deep puddles are able to prevent you from any further exploration? Is it because the plate armor will somehow rust if you dip your feet in em? Okay, another example... go to Ostagar. There are trees four feet apart that will form an impenetrable barrier. Steps that are only two feet high in Orzammar will block your movement. Head into the Deep Roads, and you'll be stopped by an invisible wall about six feet in front of the rockslide it's supposed to represent.
While doing Shale's special quest, you'll have to venture into this... place that I won't really name, so this won't require spoiler tags. But in the location, there are these hot spring pools on the sides of the level with steps leading down to them. You can actually see that the level designers crafted steps, for humans, leading down into these inviting hot spring pools. Why not go down for a little soak? Well, tough shit, cause the invisible walls again won't let you. This isn't some sort of a major gameplay flaw, but rather just kind of a puzzling choice on the part of the BioWare level designers. Why would it be better to actually limit the player in so many ways? Is freedom really so frowned upon? It kinda makes me wonder if they're somehow totalitarian fascists or something. Well, that's kind of a joke, but seriously... what could be harmed by letting the player walk down into a hot spring pool? Or allowing us to walk over tiny little ponds? Or making the trees more crowded in a location so the invisible wall looks like it'd actually impede movement? This is just really sloppy work. Bottom line, they need to be better at making limits for areas. The really strange thing is, I don't believe this bizarre level design issue reared its head at all when I played through KOTOR or Mass Effect. Maybe I forgot about it but... I don't think so. Just seems to happen in DA.
Moving right along... what is up with the loot lag? Sometimes I'll just loot everything after a battle, move on, and then backtrack a little while later and discover some more shimmering bodies. See, that's how I know that loot lag is present in the game. For a singleplayer game, it shouldn't take forever for loot to show up on bodies. Is it really that hardware intensive to process some loot stats that are probably in a small text file? It's just sad that I've encountered so much more loot lag in DA then in an MMO like WoW which has to deal with lag and all sorts of other complications.
The design of encounters in the game can seem very uh, strange and ass backwards. I'll not explain this in great detail, that might spoil something. In some quest situations, you'll have to answer a riddle. If you get it right, hurray. If you get it wrong, you have to fight a demon. Killing the demon gives experience, but just getting the riddle right doesn't. Why the hell would I want to answer it correctly and get no experience? What sort of incentive is that? It's completely counter-intuitive and ridiculous. People are actually punished for answering correctly. Everyone wants to get more XP, this is an RPG after all. Getting a dialogue answer correct should reward the player just as much as getting it wrong, if not more so.
Lastly, what is up with sustains? Most of the sustains work fine, but some are just janky and for no reason. Or they work differently but it's never explained in the description. For example, Rally seems to turn off automatically whenever I enter a new area. Wynne's Vessel of the Spirit has some unknown duration. This is no good.
Dragon Age: Some complaints of mine.
First of all... let's talk about the love scenes you can trigger with Morrigan/Leliana. You only get to watch them once in the whole campaign. Frankly, it's very disappointing. Why should that love scene only play the first time you trigger it? Every subsequent time you select that dialogue option, the game just skips and you never get to see it again. WTF? I selected it, that means I wanna see it damnit.
I don't wanna press Start whenever I boot up the game, but I'm somehow forced to do it. On the other hand, if I do want to see the love scene again, that's somehow not important enough? Pressing Start at the Start Menu... absolutely required and somehow necessary but respecting the wishes of the player to have sex again... can't be done? Where are the priorities here? What's going on with the developers? Do they know anything about human beings and playing a game? It's ridiculous. This is like, common sense here.
Another issue I have with the game... the itemization for spellcasters seems pretty damn shitty. I had Morrigan in her starting robes until obtaining the Robes of Possession (the best robes in the game for her), which just looked identical to her default costume. So basically, I never actually got to see her appearance change at all. That's just a little fucking lame, right? I spent a ton of time sorting through loot and upgrading my own warrior character, but the spellcasters really don't ever need that kind of attention, cause they never get any upgrades.
Same thing with staffs. I think I upgraded Morrigan's like... about one time in the majority of the game. Then I got to the endgame and decided to actually spend some of my accumulated wealth on a much better staff from the Mage shop in Denerim. So that's two upgrades in the entire run of the game, and only one if you just count loot obtained from enemies.
I don't wanna press Start whenever I boot up the game, but I'm somehow forced to do it. On the other hand, if I do want to see the love scene again, that's somehow not important enough? Pressing Start at the Start Menu... absolutely required and somehow necessary but respecting the wishes of the player to have sex again... can't be done? Where are the priorities here? What's going on with the developers? Do they know anything about human beings and playing a game? It's ridiculous. This is like, common sense here.
Another issue I have with the game... the itemization for spellcasters seems pretty damn shitty. I had Morrigan in her starting robes until obtaining the Robes of Possession (the best robes in the game for her), which just looked identical to her default costume. So basically, I never actually got to see her appearance change at all. That's just a little fucking lame, right? I spent a ton of time sorting through loot and upgrading my own warrior character, but the spellcasters really don't ever need that kind of attention, cause they never get any upgrades.
Same thing with staffs. I think I upgraded Morrigan's like... about one time in the majority of the game. Then I got to the endgame and decided to actually spend some of my accumulated wealth on a much better staff from the Mage shop in Denerim. So that's two upgrades in the entire run of the game, and only one if you just count loot obtained from enemies.
Bayonetta the Demo: Hey yea, it is awful.
This demo is DUMB. I just played it and yea, the graphics are nice, but there's so much messed up shit here. For one thing, the camera seems to be inverted on the horizontal plane. You'll push the stick to the left and the camera swings right. Push the stick to the right and the camera swings left. Sure, there's probably an option to change it, but why on earth would they think it'd be a good idea to invert it on default? That's just silly. Not to mention the camera's not nearly as responsive as it should be.
And why are my retinas flashing red? Right after you get off the train, there are like red pulsing nerves at the edges of the screen. There's also butterflies popping out of the ground when you land after a jump. Wha... what? What the hell is that about? The angel dudes you fight are called Third Stage Applaud? Am I supposed to be applauding their arrival or something? what does Applaud even mean in the context of giant angel guys with beaks? Should they be applauding? Are we supposed to applaud how good they look?
And of course, there's some bullshit invisible forcefield when you try to run back to the train station. How does that make any sense?
I will say though... Bayonetta really doesn't look like Sarah Palin. Sarah Palin looks really good for a woman in her 40s, but she'll never look as good as a CGI creation. Bayonetta has one really long neck though. Like, almost like a giraffe gave birth to her. It's very off-putting.
Last of all, the music is fucking terrible. Awful, retarded J-pop garbage. I mean... I went and turned it off completely about 10 seconds into the demo. But uhhh, that music... what the fuck man. Just what the fuck.
And why are my retinas flashing red? Right after you get off the train, there are like red pulsing nerves at the edges of the screen. There's also butterflies popping out of the ground when you land after a jump. Wha... what? What the hell is that about? The angel dudes you fight are called Third Stage Applaud? Am I supposed to be applauding their arrival or something? what does Applaud even mean in the context of giant angel guys with beaks? Should they be applauding? Are we supposed to applaud how good they look?
And of course, there's some bullshit invisible forcefield when you try to run back to the train station. How does that make any sense?
I will say though... Bayonetta really doesn't look like Sarah Palin. Sarah Palin looks really good for a woman in her 40s, but she'll never look as good as a CGI creation. Bayonetta has one really long neck though. Like, almost like a giraffe gave birth to her. It's very off-putting.
Last of all, the music is fucking terrible. Awful, retarded J-pop garbage. I mean... I went and turned it off completely about 10 seconds into the demo. But uhhh, that music... what the fuck man. Just what the fuck.
Time for some praise: Ubisoft Montreal
I've been feeling this way for a while now and thought it should be put down in writing... Ubisoft Montreal makes games with absolutely the best third person cameras. Like, you never hear any complaints about cameras in FPSs, they only ever show up in reviews about third person games. Well, I think Montreal's games really give us the best cameras in gamedom (Yes, I am calling a gaming kingdom a gamedom). Splinter Cell was great, Assassin's Creed and PoP were great, there's simply nothing to note except that the cameras, or perspective, whatever you wanna call it, they work perfectly. You never hear about good third person cameras, only bad third person cameras, so I just thought I'd state that they do an amazing job getting it right. Their games and WoW.
I need more romance options in Dragon Age
This summary is not available. Please
click here to view the post.
Dragon Age Origins: A Lack of Jennifer Hale makes me a sad panda.
Here's something I've been thinking about for a while...
Is anyone else shocked that they didn't get Jennifer Hale to voice anything in this game? She's been their go-to girl for quite a few games now... Baldur's Gate, Baldur's Gate: Ultimate Alliance, Baldur's Gate II, KOTOR, Mass Effect... it just feels wrong not to hear her again. I'll admit, I've become quite enamored with her performances over the years. Not that the voice actors for Morrigan and Leliana do a bad job, not at all. They've been quite good. But Jennifer Hale and BioWare games, they're just two great tastes that taste great together. Or something like that.
Maybe she was just unavailable because of her duties on Brutal Legend. If so, that's a real shame.
Is anyone else shocked that they didn't get Jennifer Hale to voice anything in this game? She's been their go-to girl for quite a few games now... Baldur's Gate, Baldur's Gate: Ultimate Alliance, Baldur's Gate II, KOTOR, Mass Effect... it just feels wrong not to hear her again. I'll admit, I've become quite enamored with her performances over the years. Not that the voice actors for Morrigan and Leliana do a bad job, not at all. They've been quite good. But Jennifer Hale and BioWare games, they're just two great tastes that taste great together. Or something like that.
Maybe she was just unavailable because of her duties on Brutal Legend. If so, that's a real shame.
Why I won't play the Dwarf.
Ya know, it's great that Dragon Age Origins has 6 unique player characters you can start with. That means potentially six playthroughs, adding up to a shitload of hours. That's all well and good but uh... I find myself feeling quite bad about this. See, I don't think I'm ever gonna choose to play a dwarf character. Like, maybe just to see his origin at the beginning, but never a full playthrough.
Now, you're probably asking, why would I do a silly thing like that? Why such a dislike for playing the humble dwarf? Well, it pretty much boils down to one issue:
The thought of actually watching my dwarf character kissing and making love to Morrigan/Leliana is frankly horrifying. Absolutely appalling.
Now, you're probably asking, why would I do a silly thing like that? Why such a dislike for playing the humble dwarf? Well, it pretty much boils down to one issue:
The thought of actually watching my dwarf character kissing and making love to Morrigan/Leliana is frankly horrifying. Absolutely appalling.
See, the funny thing with BioWare games...
Ya know, there's this one thing that's always bothered me about Mass Effect and now DA...
People treated Specters in ME as supermen of a sort. But really, you're visually just another soldier in battlearmor and carrying a gun. Not that remarkable, right? Same issue here in DA. I come up on some wounded soldier and he somehow knows that I'm a Grey Warden. But uh, how would he know that? I look just like any conscripted bum with a suit of armor and a shield and sword. How does my appearance look like a Grey Warden? Not to mention, I wasn't technically a Grey Warden yet. Shouldn't a Grey Warden look like some uber knight with shiny bling or something? I just, I dunno what to think here. There's absolutely nothing to distinguish a Grey Warden from any regular soldier. Why would any NPC talk about Wardens in hushed tones of reverence, when there's no visual indicator that a Warden is among them? I don't get it.
KOTOR was a different matter cause it's obviously easy to tell a Jedi with a lightsaber from any regular soldier wielding some vibroblade.
People treated Specters in ME as supermen of a sort. But really, you're visually just another soldier in battlearmor and carrying a gun. Not that remarkable, right? Same issue here in DA. I come up on some wounded soldier and he somehow knows that I'm a Grey Warden. But uh, how would he know that? I look just like any conscripted bum with a suit of armor and a shield and sword. How does my appearance look like a Grey Warden? Not to mention, I wasn't technically a Grey Warden yet. Shouldn't a Grey Warden look like some uber knight with shiny bling or something? I just, I dunno what to think here. There's absolutely nothing to distinguish a Grey Warden from any regular soldier. Why would any NPC talk about Wardens in hushed tones of reverence, when there's no visual indicator that a Warden is among them? I don't get it.
KOTOR was a different matter cause it's obviously easy to tell a Jedi with a lightsaber from any regular soldier wielding some vibroblade.
I've finished it: MW2 is one of the greatest games ever created.
From the moment the intro movie with the Clan Wolf Timber Wolf kicks in, you know you're in for an incredible ride. The loud thumping of the mechanical titans' feet, the blasts of azure PPC fire... it just comes together in a wonderful symphony of destruction. The two different factions, Clan Wolf and Clan Jade Falcon really give weight to the narrative of the Refusal War and let you know that you're getting your money's worth. What sorta game, outside of RTSs, actually has two campaigns these days, one for each faction? All in beautiful 1024x768 resolution for those of us with rigs powerful enough to use it. It's pretty amazing that this was possible for a DOS game when most other games at the time were still using 320xsomethingIcan'tevenrememberanymore!
I gotta be honest here. BattleTech is my favorite fictional universe, bar none. While I am also a huge Star Trek fan, my first love has always been BattleTech. I can still remember walking into a game store in my wee youth and stumbling into the back, where I laid eyes on a 3025 Technical Readout, the one with the Marauder on the front. Sure didn't know it at the time, but I would end up collecting a large part of that universe's books over the years. I actually paid 144 dollars for a vinyl model of a Timber Wolf and have it sitting on my shelf. This universe obviously means a great deal to me. And the closest gaming portrayal of the BattleTech universe is the classic MW2. The Clans are my favorite faction in BattleTech, so to be able to immerse myself in Clan Jade Falcon or Clan Wolf was incredibly enjoyable. Plus, the completely open weapon loadout customization and just well-thought out gameplay mechanics make the actual game a joy to pilot. The fluff of the universe is simply icing on the cake for a simulation which portrays 20-100 ton walking machines of warfare.
And for those of you wondering, the lack of dedicated servers for multiplayer was completely fine with me. Sure, it's expected of most PC games these days, but you gotta remember, MW2 was made way back in the scary DOS days, later ported over to Windows. There was Kali, and NetMech, and that was fine for us old timers. In fact, you might not be aware, but the entire term of "Clans" for online gaming groups came about because of MW2, it was that influential in helping to establish online gaming into what it is today. The More You Know!
Sure there are a few problems. The PPCs are slow moving blue balls instead of beams of lightning. And the darn right arm always seemed to be the first location to be destroyed. But despite those shortcomings, MW2 is fondly remembered by myself, and many other old timers, as the best Mech Sim ever, and undoubtedly one of the greatest games ever created.
I gotta be honest here. BattleTech is my favorite fictional universe, bar none. While I am also a huge Star Trek fan, my first love has always been BattleTech. I can still remember walking into a game store in my wee youth and stumbling into the back, where I laid eyes on a 3025 Technical Readout, the one with the Marauder on the front. Sure didn't know it at the time, but I would end up collecting a large part of that universe's books over the years. I actually paid 144 dollars for a vinyl model of a Timber Wolf and have it sitting on my shelf. This universe obviously means a great deal to me. And the closest gaming portrayal of the BattleTech universe is the classic MW2. The Clans are my favorite faction in BattleTech, so to be able to immerse myself in Clan Jade Falcon or Clan Wolf was incredibly enjoyable. Plus, the completely open weapon loadout customization and just well-thought out gameplay mechanics make the actual game a joy to pilot. The fluff of the universe is simply icing on the cake for a simulation which portrays 20-100 ton walking machines of warfare.
And for those of you wondering, the lack of dedicated servers for multiplayer was completely fine with me. Sure, it's expected of most PC games these days, but you gotta remember, MW2 was made way back in the scary DOS days, later ported over to Windows. There was Kali, and NetMech, and that was fine for us old timers. In fact, you might not be aware, but the entire term of "Clans" for online gaming groups came about because of MW2, it was that influential in helping to establish online gaming into what it is today. The More You Know!
Sure there are a few problems. The PPCs are slow moving blue balls instead of beams of lightning. And the darn right arm always seemed to be the first location to be destroyed. But despite those shortcomings, MW2 is fondly remembered by myself, and many other old timers, as the best Mech Sim ever, and undoubtedly one of the greatest games ever created.
Impressions of Red Faction Guerilla
This game has some issues. I just started playing it on Hard cause ya know, I'm pretty good at games and stuff but uh... the mission to liberate Parker is just frustrating. Ya know, that mission where you get in a truck and have to run over 12 sensor towers. It's frustrating for a couple reasons. The vehicle handling isn't particularly good, your truck takes a whole lot of damage once the plasma bolt spamming APCs show up, and you're also getting rammed all over the road by APCs crashing into you. You can get out and try killing em but they just keep respawning so that's pointless.
The other big issue I have is with the ammo capacity for weapons. For some reason, the assault rifle is only able to hold 3 magazines. 120 rounds. Now, that's insanely low for a shooter where you have EDF forces spawning all the time. Especially cause it takes about 10-12 rounds on Hard to drop a soldier. So you run out really quickly. That's just not fun. Why would you only be able to hold 3 magazines? That's not nearly enough. I was expecting an upgrade to increase it to 6 or 8 magazines, but I don't think such an upgrade exists. That's a real shame.
The other big issue I have is with the ammo capacity for weapons. For some reason, the assault rifle is only able to hold 3 magazines. 120 rounds. Now, that's insanely low for a shooter where you have EDF forces spawning all the time. Especially cause it takes about 10-12 rounds on Hard to drop a soldier. So you run out really quickly. That's just not fun. Why would you only be able to hold 3 magazines? That's not nearly enough. I was expecting an upgrade to increase it to 6 or 8 magazines, but I don't think such an upgrade exists. That's a real shame.
Realistic Wrestling Games? Let's Ponder!
So uh, Jeff's a pretty big wrestling fan. Or, rather, he seems to be, cause he knows stuff about wrestling. Kinda a rarity in this day and age. I think that's fair to say. I mean, cmon... wrestling? Who gives a fuck about wrestling these days? More people care about the World Wildlife Fund then about the silly shenanigans of some grown men in spandex touching each other. Anyways, him talking about wrestling in the recent Quick Look about that wrestling game that's like... WCW Extreme Versus NCAA 12k or something... it got me thinking... about realistic wrestling games. You probably have no idea what I'm talking about. That's cool, we'll walk down this path together.
Wrestling's fake. Well, at least the wrestling that's portrayed in these wrestling games. Everyone knows this.
Video games are also fake. However, their fakeness is vastly different from the kind of fakeness in Wrestling. Video games are fake but can present a realism that's not possible in real life entertainment. Thus, wresting video games... they don't have to be fake in the same way as wrestling in real life. Yet, would people want that, or do they want fake realism in their wrestling games?
Just think about it. In real life, wrestlers don't actually punch each other. They pretend to punch each other, while stomping the ground with their foot to make the impact sound. Or they'll slam chairs into each other, but only hitting their meaty back, where they won't inflict any actual injuries to the other person. Instead of actually punching and drawing blood, the other guy simply hides a small razor until the opportune moment and then cuts himself with it. This is the sort of stuff that real fake wrestlers have to do in order to deliver their unique brand of entertainment.
Well, now let's look at video games. Wrestling video games don't have to worry about any of those limitations. They can actually animate wrestlers' ingame models punching each other and making contact, using chairs on any part of their opponent's body, etc. But then, that wouldn't be an authentic wrestling game, would it? It would be much less of a simulation of the "sport." So should the developers strive for realism in simulating the wrestling? Actually model a tiny razor blade in the character model's hands? Do you want to see the ingame player surreptitiously cut himself on the forehead during a match? Should the wrestler models actually be punching air and stomping with their feet in order to simulate an actual punch inside the game? That's a double fakeness, isn't it? It's the fake sport, actually being protrayed in an realism manner, inside a video game, which is fake. That's kinda mind boggling. I don't play any wrestling games, so I dunno how they deal with this in current games. But it's an intriguing concept.
Wrestling's fake. Well, at least the wrestling that's portrayed in these wrestling games. Everyone knows this.
Video games are also fake. However, their fakeness is vastly different from the kind of fakeness in Wrestling. Video games are fake but can present a realism that's not possible in real life entertainment. Thus, wresting video games... they don't have to be fake in the same way as wrestling in real life. Yet, would people want that, or do they want fake realism in their wrestling games?
Just think about it. In real life, wrestlers don't actually punch each other. They pretend to punch each other, while stomping the ground with their foot to make the impact sound. Or they'll slam chairs into each other, but only hitting their meaty back, where they won't inflict any actual injuries to the other person. Instead of actually punching and drawing blood, the other guy simply hides a small razor until the opportune moment and then cuts himself with it. This is the sort of stuff that real fake wrestlers have to do in order to deliver their unique brand of entertainment.
Well, now let's look at video games. Wrestling video games don't have to worry about any of those limitations. They can actually animate wrestlers' ingame models punching each other and making contact, using chairs on any part of their opponent's body, etc. But then, that wouldn't be an authentic wrestling game, would it? It would be much less of a simulation of the "sport." So should the developers strive for realism in simulating the wrestling? Actually model a tiny razor blade in the character model's hands? Do you want to see the ingame player surreptitiously cut himself on the forehead during a match? Should the wrestler models actually be punching air and stomping with their feet in order to simulate an actual punch inside the game? That's a double fakeness, isn't it? It's the fake sport, actually being protrayed in an realism manner, inside a video game, which is fake. That's kinda mind boggling. I don't play any wrestling games, so I dunno how they deal with this in current games. But it's an intriguing concept.
Anyone else found these delays for PC games a bit... suspicious?
Has anyone else noticed that PC versions of multiplatform games now always seem to have release delays compared to their console versions? We had the delay for Batman Arkham Asylum, which was chocked up to the addition of PhysX effects. That seemed a little bit plausible. Kinda. You could sorta see it as a reason. Fair enough, right? Red Faction Guerrilla also had a substantial delay for the PC version. Street Fighter 4 and Resident Evil 5 obviously had lengthy spans of time between their console and PC releases. Though I suppose in their case, it's more the Japanese developers not giving a hoot about the PC market then actually trying to delay the games in an effort to combat piracy. Two of the biggest hits in recent years, Assassin's Creed and GTA 4 were both released on PC long after their console versions. Borderlands PC is going to be delayed 3 days, ostensibly because they're "optimizing the PC version which takes a few days longer than expected." Which is frankly absurd. Optimizing code takes a bit longer then 3 days, most reasonable people can agree.
Now we've gotten word that COD Modern Warfare 2 is going to have a 2 week delay for the PC version. Mind you, I don't really care, Call of Duty 4 was a pretty big disappointment and I have no plans to get the sequel. I mean... it looks like more linear scripted sequences every ten feet, more infinite respawning enemies, now with unrealistic dual wielding? C'mon, that's a no brainer. But uh, it's just another in a growing trend of delays for PC games compared to consoles. Obviously, I think it's getting pretty clear that this is just the industry as a whole trying to combat piracy and has nothing to do with polishing/optimizing the game, adding weird PhysX effects, yadda yadda yadda. It's just adding a delay to give more incentive to buy the game on consoles. And even if you take out the piracy component, there's just a benefit to selling someone a 60 dollar game as opposed to selling them a 50 dollar game.
I can't help feeling that this grand strategy is going to backfire. These uniform delays are going to just make people bitter and actually convince them that the game companies are turning against them on the PC. One might even say it could serve as an impetus for higher rates of piracy, just to spite them. Seems like an alright idea, if you think about it. They're screwing us by delaying the release on the PC, we'll screw them over by pirating the game. It's a vicious cycle, one might say.
Now we've gotten word that COD Modern Warfare 2 is going to have a 2 week delay for the PC version. Mind you, I don't really care, Call of Duty 4 was a pretty big disappointment and I have no plans to get the sequel. I mean... it looks like more linear scripted sequences every ten feet, more infinite respawning enemies, now with unrealistic dual wielding? C'mon, that's a no brainer. But uh, it's just another in a growing trend of delays for PC games compared to consoles. Obviously, I think it's getting pretty clear that this is just the industry as a whole trying to combat piracy and has nothing to do with polishing/optimizing the game, adding weird PhysX effects, yadda yadda yadda. It's just adding a delay to give more incentive to buy the game on consoles. And even if you take out the piracy component, there's just a benefit to selling someone a 60 dollar game as opposed to selling them a 50 dollar game.
I can't help feeling that this grand strategy is going to backfire. These uniform delays are going to just make people bitter and actually convince them that the game companies are turning against them on the PC. One might even say it could serve as an impetus for higher rates of piracy, just to spite them. Seems like an alright idea, if you think about it. They're screwing us by delaying the release on the PC, we'll screw them over by pirating the game. It's a vicious cycle, one might say.
Sunday, May 9, 2010
What's up with all the Delta Squads? Kinda cliched, right?
I don't get it, why is Delta always used as the squad designation of choice for games? Hear me out here, I don't think I'm being crazy and far out like I usually am. You've got Delta Squad in Star Wars Republic Commando, right? That's one, that's one infantry squad in a game that calls itself Delta. Pretty good squad, nice camaraderie there, shame there's no sequel.
Then you've got the Delta Cog Squad in Gears of War 1 and 2. That's another highly prominent squad that calls itself Delta. Marcus Fenix starts out with Dom but they eventually get to join Delta. Isn't that getting a bit excessive? I'm not saying that Epic ripped off RC here, but it just seems that people are gravitating towards using Delta, instead of something like Mu or Epsilon or Beta or Gamma or anything else...
Ya know, now that I think about it, maybe they're both taking cues from Novalogic's Delta Force. Obviously, that game is based on a real life Army Special Forces unit called Delta Force, also the 1st SFOD or CAG (Combat Applications Group). Basically, they're the elite of the elite. So perhaps both RC and GoW are trying to evoke that sorta sense of military competence. Even though I'm not sure the Cole Train persona would really be representative of a military soldier. Not so sure about that guy. Seems a little iffy.
Then you've got the Delta Cog Squad in Gears of War 1 and 2. That's another highly prominent squad that calls itself Delta. Marcus Fenix starts out with Dom but they eventually get to join Delta. Isn't that getting a bit excessive? I'm not saying that Epic ripped off RC here, but it just seems that people are gravitating towards using Delta, instead of something like Mu or Epsilon or Beta or Gamma or anything else...
Ya know, now that I think about it, maybe they're both taking cues from Novalogic's Delta Force. Obviously, that game is based on a real life Army Special Forces unit called Delta Force, also the 1st SFOD or CAG (Combat Applications Group). Basically, they're the elite of the elite. So perhaps both RC and GoW are trying to evoke that sorta sense of military competence. Even though I'm not sure the Cole Train persona would really be representative of a military soldier. Not so sure about that guy. Seems a little iffy.
Batman's mysterious explosive bat-gel
I was just thinking about the explosive gel, and it occurred to me that there's no real way to trigger it, is there? Cause doesn't Batman just spray the gel onto the wall in the shape of a bat? Then he steps away and triggers the gel with a remote detonator in his hand. But how does that signal from the detonator activate the gel? Is there some sort of receiver stuck inside the gel that receives the signal from the detonator? I didn't see any. The gel itself can't possibly receive remote signals, can it? It's just this gel substance.
Has anyone figured out how Batman triggers the gel to explode?
Has anyone figured out how Batman triggers the gel to explode?
WoW's Clearly Calamitous Catastrophic Cataclysm! Details ahead
Geez, does it seem like Blizzard's just kinda given up on putting forth any sort of effort? At this point, it just seems like they're desperately trying to keep the money train rolling. Ya know, first there's the Burning Crusade. Which was about Outland, which had some fires and a uh... crusade of some sort. It made some sense. Then the Wrath of the Lich King, which was about Arthas being angry about something. And he was the Lich King. So that also worked. But now, what do they do? They give us a remodeled Azeroth that allows flying mounts, which is nice but seems kinda odd for a full blown expansion. And it's called Cataclysm. Like, really? You couldn't really think up anything better then Cataclysm? Ripping off the name of a Homeworld game? Anyone know what I'm talking about? Cataclysm was the Barking Dog expansion pack for the original Homeworld. Pretty good one too, but it was about warships fighting it out in 3D space. In an RTS. Not much in common with a fantasy RPG game.
That's the best you can come up with, "Cataclysm?" Way to phone it in, Blizzard.
Wouldn't something like "Revenge of Deathwing" be more descriptive? I was gonna say "Wrath of Deathwing" but the Lich King had already wrathed. There's not enough wrath to go around, I guess.
Yea, that was a Star Trek II/ROTS reference
...Oh damn... there's gonna be Heroic Van Cleef? Okay, fuck the lame name... I'm back on board. THIS IS GOING TO BE AWESOME.
That's the best you can come up with, "Cataclysm?" Way to phone it in, Blizzard.
Wouldn't something like "Revenge of Deathwing" be more descriptive? I was gonna say "Wrath of Deathwing" but the Lich King had already wrathed. There's not enough wrath to go around, I guess.
Yea, that was a Star Trek II/ROTS reference
...Oh damn... there's gonna be Heroic Van Cleef? Okay, fuck the lame name... I'm back on board. THIS IS GOING TO BE AWESOME.
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Stupid Video Game Cliches
Oh man, where to start...
Well first off, I just love those games where you can put away your gun, switch to a knife, and somehow... this allows you to run faster. Like, WTF? The gun didn't disappear, you're still carrying it somewhere on your body... why would holding a knife instead reduce your overall weight and allow you to move quicker? It makes absolutely no sense. Wasn't it the case in Counter-Strike? It's been a while, but I think it was. People on your team would immediately pull out their knives at the start of every match so they could leg it a bit quicker to the chokepoints. Absolutely retarded game mechanic. I think I saw the same thing happen in a Quick Look of Fallout 3 DLC. Hey, let's run faster because we put the gun back into our backpack and pulled out our knife. Yea, way to go... that makes a lot of fucking sense.
And what about the super weak flashlights we always get to use in games? Like, the ones that only work for 30 seconds before you have to turn em off to recharge? Let's see, what games have these weakass flashlights... I think Half-Life, FEAR, and AvP 2 just to name a few. Cmon, where do they buy these piece of shit flashlights? Are the batteries really that weak? They seem to work forever, but you just need to let them recharge every 30 seconds? What are you recharging them with? Is there some perpetual motion device you use to crank em up? Is that how those work? Cause I know regular flashlights can work for hours without needing their batteries replaced. How they didn't decide to buy those regular good ones for use in Black Mesa, whereever-the-hell-FEAR-is, and the Colonial Marine Corps, I just don't know. It's mind boggling.
Weapon balance in games is just silly sometimes. In almost every action game, you've got the pistol, then the rifle. Sometimes it's called an SMG. Now, the funny thing is... the pistol's bullet somehow seems a lot stronger then the rifle's. You'll pull out this pistol and it delivers a mighty semi automatic bang. Yet when you switch to this faster rifle or SMG, their bullets seem mighty underpowered. Like, the bullets are individually much weaker then the bullets in the humble pistol. When in reality, a rifle's bullets are actually going to be bigger or at least the same as the pistol's. Yet while you can snap off one or two rounds from a pistol to down an enemy, the rifle might require bucketloads of shots to put down the same enemy. Obviously, this isn't the case in every game, but it's a trend I've noticed in quite a few. It makes absolutely no sense. Why don't the rifle's bullets pack as much of a punch as the pistol's? It seems to be arbitrary balancing bullshit on the part of the developer. Good example of this phenomenon would be the assault rifle from Halo. You can use a few shots from the pistol (which somehow also has a scope) or use up 60 rounds from your rifle. Why does the rifle use plastic bbs instead of real bullets like the pistol? Hey, I'm not Bungie.
Okay, now let's talk about another gun, the shotgun. The shotgun in a lot of games seems to be insanely short ranged. Like, I've seen water hoses with more cohesion at range. Classic example is the shotgun from Doom 3. Now, this thing sprays buckshot so wide that it only has an effective range of about five feet. Seriously, I'm not exaggerating here, you just shouldn't use it beyond five feet. The spread is that bad. It just defies logic, why would anyone make a shotgun that only works out to five feet? An honorary member could also be the assault rifle from Halo. No, it's not a shotgun, but it also has an effective range of about five feet. Why would anyone use a rifle with spray that wide? Who knows.
In every sort of GTA open world game, all you have to do is jump into the car and push out the driver. They all have their doors unlocked for some reason. Is this really how people drive? They leave their doors unlocked? I sure as hell lock my doors when I drive my car. Do you? You should, precisely so you don't get someone kicking you to the curb and driving off in your ride. It's common sense, really. Also, if you grab a vacant car in a game, they'll always have their keys inside. No need to hot wire it or anything.
In RTSs, you'll have battlecruisers the same size as five or six infantry soldiers. How does that make any sense? The goddamn battlecruiser's supposed to be the size of the whole fucking map, right? Why would they make it a buildable unit and then make it look as big as six soldiers? How does that do justice to the battlecruiser? Frankly, it seems a bit insulting. There are probably four or five hundred people on board the battlecruiser. Maybe more. Maybe it's over a thousand, like the Galaxy class Enterprise-D. Yet here it is, floating about five feet over the battlefield and looking comparable to a squad of marines. Why would anyone think this was a good idea?
I recently watched a new gameplay video for AvP 3 and saw a marine being held down by an Alien, completely helpless, his gun nowhere to be seen. This pleased me, because it has always frustrated me how melee has gotten the shaft in first person games. Melee should be insanely scary, just because if the big bad monster actually makes it to you, you're not just going to get to shoot at it with your gun while it futilely claws away bits of your health and armor. If it gets into melee, it's going to knock your fucking gun out of your hands and proceed to rape your face off. That's what a melee enemy in a game should do. Yet it's never been portrayed this way. Both the previous AvP games just had you shooting aliens even at point blank range, negating their effectiveness. I'm glad to see that AvP 3 is gonna be different, giving melee enemies their teeth back. You should be scared of them surviving your ranged fire and getting into melee range. Guns never getting knocked out of your hands in FPSs was simply illogical and way too easy.
Well first off, I just love those games where you can put away your gun, switch to a knife, and somehow... this allows you to run faster. Like, WTF? The gun didn't disappear, you're still carrying it somewhere on your body... why would holding a knife instead reduce your overall weight and allow you to move quicker? It makes absolutely no sense. Wasn't it the case in Counter-Strike? It's been a while, but I think it was. People on your team would immediately pull out their knives at the start of every match so they could leg it a bit quicker to the chokepoints. Absolutely retarded game mechanic. I think I saw the same thing happen in a Quick Look of Fallout 3 DLC. Hey, let's run faster because we put the gun back into our backpack and pulled out our knife. Yea, way to go... that makes a lot of fucking sense.
And what about the super weak flashlights we always get to use in games? Like, the ones that only work for 30 seconds before you have to turn em off to recharge? Let's see, what games have these weakass flashlights... I think Half-Life, FEAR, and AvP 2 just to name a few. Cmon, where do they buy these piece of shit flashlights? Are the batteries really that weak? They seem to work forever, but you just need to let them recharge every 30 seconds? What are you recharging them with? Is there some perpetual motion device you use to crank em up? Is that how those work? Cause I know regular flashlights can work for hours without needing their batteries replaced. How they didn't decide to buy those regular good ones for use in Black Mesa, whereever-the-hell-FEAR-is, and the Colonial Marine Corps, I just don't know. It's mind boggling.
Weapon balance in games is just silly sometimes. In almost every action game, you've got the pistol, then the rifle. Sometimes it's called an SMG. Now, the funny thing is... the pistol's bullet somehow seems a lot stronger then the rifle's. You'll pull out this pistol and it delivers a mighty semi automatic bang. Yet when you switch to this faster rifle or SMG, their bullets seem mighty underpowered. Like, the bullets are individually much weaker then the bullets in the humble pistol. When in reality, a rifle's bullets are actually going to be bigger or at least the same as the pistol's. Yet while you can snap off one or two rounds from a pistol to down an enemy, the rifle might require bucketloads of shots to put down the same enemy. Obviously, this isn't the case in every game, but it's a trend I've noticed in quite a few. It makes absolutely no sense. Why don't the rifle's bullets pack as much of a punch as the pistol's? It seems to be arbitrary balancing bullshit on the part of the developer. Good example of this phenomenon would be the assault rifle from Halo. You can use a few shots from the pistol (which somehow also has a scope) or use up 60 rounds from your rifle. Why does the rifle use plastic bbs instead of real bullets like the pistol? Hey, I'm not Bungie.
Okay, now let's talk about another gun, the shotgun. The shotgun in a lot of games seems to be insanely short ranged. Like, I've seen water hoses with more cohesion at range. Classic example is the shotgun from Doom 3. Now, this thing sprays buckshot so wide that it only has an effective range of about five feet. Seriously, I'm not exaggerating here, you just shouldn't use it beyond five feet. The spread is that bad. It just defies logic, why would anyone make a shotgun that only works out to five feet? An honorary member could also be the assault rifle from Halo. No, it's not a shotgun, but it also has an effective range of about five feet. Why would anyone use a rifle with spray that wide? Who knows.
In every sort of GTA open world game, all you have to do is jump into the car and push out the driver. They all have their doors unlocked for some reason. Is this really how people drive? They leave their doors unlocked? I sure as hell lock my doors when I drive my car. Do you? You should, precisely so you don't get someone kicking you to the curb and driving off in your ride. It's common sense, really. Also, if you grab a vacant car in a game, they'll always have their keys inside. No need to hot wire it or anything.
In RTSs, you'll have battlecruisers the same size as five or six infantry soldiers. How does that make any sense? The goddamn battlecruiser's supposed to be the size of the whole fucking map, right? Why would they make it a buildable unit and then make it look as big as six soldiers? How does that do justice to the battlecruiser? Frankly, it seems a bit insulting. There are probably four or five hundred people on board the battlecruiser. Maybe more. Maybe it's over a thousand, like the Galaxy class Enterprise-D. Yet here it is, floating about five feet over the battlefield and looking comparable to a squad of marines. Why would anyone think this was a good idea?
I recently watched a new gameplay video for AvP 3 and saw a marine being held down by an Alien, completely helpless, his gun nowhere to be seen. This pleased me, because it has always frustrated me how melee has gotten the shaft in first person games. Melee should be insanely scary, just because if the big bad monster actually makes it to you, you're not just going to get to shoot at it with your gun while it futilely claws away bits of your health and armor. If it gets into melee, it's going to knock your fucking gun out of your hands and proceed to rape your face off. That's what a melee enemy in a game should do. Yet it's never been portrayed this way. Both the previous AvP games just had you shooting aliens even at point blank range, negating their effectiveness. I'm glad to see that AvP 3 is gonna be different, giving melee enemies their teeth back. You should be scared of them surviving your ranged fire and getting into melee range. Guns never getting knocked out of your hands in FPSs was simply illogical and way too easy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
