Jump to content

All Things Video Games Thread: II


Recommended Posts

Lol i posted that on facebook, very true and makes you think we are near the end of the road in a lot of places. And in response to Dynaman it's Cracked, all their articles are like that. Providing insight with crass comedy.

Edited by kanedaestes
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, Bungie is going to announce something called Bungie Aerospace in their anniversary celebrations coming up. Halo, sure, milking it; doesn't mean they don't have something else in the pipeline, right?

Bungie has to have something else in the pipeline... they don't have Halo anymore. Bungie split with Microsoft in '07 and now has a publishing deal with Activision Blizzard, and Microsoft kept Halo in the breakup. The Halo HD remake and Halo 4 are being doing by a team at Microsoft Game Studios called 343 Industries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I almost bought DNF yesterday, but after sitting down and reading some reviews, it sure is getting itself sh**ted all over. Is this some kind of new reviewer hot carl fad? Some of their complaints were just plain stupid... as if they were expecting another Halo or Call of Duty type of game. I can see the complaint in the "having only two guns" thing, but other than that... an Ego meter as health? Very interesting twist on the regenerating health concept that taints so many FPS games these days. I definitely would have preferred the health packs of the days of old, but I think the Ego meter is an interesting idea.

I just want to know what you guys think before I make any decisions. 50 bucks is a lot of discretionary spending for me right now, so I want to make sure that it's worth the money.

Personally, I'm having fun.

Duke's ego isn't that bad, because you don't have a lot of it... well, from a gameplay perspective. It's more a safety net if you screw up and less easy mode:

It DOES play largely like an older FPS, in spite of the regenerating health and two guns thing.

BTW, two guns is actually 5 guns from a 90s perspective. Pipe bombs and trip-wire mines get their own dedicated buttons, as does melee(sadly, melee attacks involve smacking people with your gun, not The Boot). So that's half a Duke 3D arsenal at once.

Not that carrying two guns around isn't lame, but... it's not as bad as it sounds at first.

Note that this all comes from a single-player story mode perspective. I make no claims regarding multiplayer either way, as it's simply not my thing.

And don't get a console version. It's an insult to Duke, and the console ports are objectively terrible things. They run at sub-HD resolutions, have no antialiasing, struggle to maintain a playable framerate, and are just not very good.

The graphics for Duke Nukem was bland, all around. The textures were half done as you can see parts of the levels (the parts you're prevented from going into) with low res place holder textures. The animations aren't finished either, take a look at Duke jumping and it'll look like some kind of pogo stick. Over all it felt like an unfinished game or like a game that was developed in 2001 and released in 2011.

But it looks damn good for a game developed in 1997. :p

I just assumed the jump animation was for nostalgia purposes, seriously.

Personally, using some lower-res textures(or more likely, not spending money to upgrade all of them) in places where you can't get a close view makes SENSE to me.

All objects are not created equal, and it keeps the system requirements down. Their recommended system has a GeForce 8800 or Radeon 3850 with 512 MB of RAM. I can't think of any other PC game I've played when it was new that I could run at anything close to max detail... not since the 3D accelerator wars started, anyways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone hear about Lulzsec hacking Bethesda Studio's website, taking user information and threatening to release it if they don't add a Lulzsec top hat in Elder Scrolls Skyrim?

I'd heard they were planning to hack Bethesda.

*sigh*

Really, that's just ... ridiculous. What is wrong with people?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd heard they were planning to hack Bethesda.

*sigh*

Really, that's just ... ridiculous. What is wrong with people?

At this point, I think they hate just about everyone. With the Minecraft hack, it's not even about corporations. Even 4chan was a recent victim. 4chan

And for what? Lulz.

Edited by Einherjar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not that they hate people. Far from it, they've found a way to make themselves famous and get accolades (from some) and attention (from the rest). They're nothing but basement-dwelling troglodytes who have found their 15 minutes of fame and are milking it for all they can. Fortunatly, they're doing it in a way that's pissing people off and highly illegal, so pretty soon the FBI and PATRIOT ACT will be knocking on their doors :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not saying public executions is the right way to address this situation, but it is the first thing that comes to mind. :angry:

Have the government equate cyber terrorism to regular terrorism, declare Lulzsec terrorists, and toss 'em in Gitmo.

EDIT: No one's been named or taken credit for it, but Bioware's been hacked now too.

Edited by mikeszekely
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have the government equate cyber terrorism to regular terrorism, declare Lulzsec terrorists, and toss 'em in Gitmo.

it completely is terrorism. It's a politically driven, non state sponsored attack on civilian infrastructure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it completely is terrorism. It's a politically driven, non state sponsored attack on civilian infrastructure.

I don't disagree, and I wasn't being facetious. I'm hoping that if we catch a few of them and put them in Gitmo we'll scare more of them straight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't disagree, and I wasn't being facetious. I'm hoping that if we catch a few of them and put them in Gitmo we'll scare more of them straight.

oh, I didn't mean it that way. Just trying to clarify how this is terrorism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

oh, I didn't mean it that way. Just trying to clarify how this is terrorism.

I don't think anyone really doubts that it is or that it fits the definition. I just foresee the government wringing their hands and treating it more like a couple of kids breaking a few windows and spraying graffiti. But this is obviously much more serious, and I think taking a step as severe as putting cyber terrorists in Gitmo would set a precedent that frightens off the kids who are involved because they think it makes them cool or rebels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not saying public executions is the right way to address this situation, but it is the first thing that comes to mind. :angry:

Actually, I think dragging them into the street and shooting them would be pretty lulzy, so to speak. ^_^

Edited by anime52k8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lol i posted that on facebook, very true and makes you think we are near the end of the road in a lot of places. And in response to Dynaman it's Cracked, all their articles are like that. Providing insight with crass comedy.

but Cracked is neither insightful nor comedic... :huh:

So, on topic with video games, is anyone else actually interested in MW3? I preordered it, I'm probably going to be playing it day one, but I'm not as excited as I was for MW2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought MW2 was a big step down from MW and with all the studio drama going on, my interest in MW3 is pretty low.

I liked Modern Warfare quite a bit. I liked World at War, which was surprising because it was the first non-Infinity Ward CoD I liked.

I thought Modern Warfare 2 and Black Ops were both boring as hell. Modern Warfare 2 was especially contrasted with Battlefield: Bad Company 2 that came out around the same time.

Needless to say, I've got no interest in Modern Warfare 3. CoD is pretty played out. Shooters in general are kind of played out. The only FPS that's really on my radar at all right now is FEAR 3, and even that I doubt will be as good as the first two.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I liked Modern Warfare quite a bit. I liked World at War, which was surprising because it was the first non-Infinity Ward CoD I liked.

I thought Modern Warfare 2 and Black Ops were both boring as hell. Modern Warfare 2 was especially contrasted with Battlefield: Bad Company 2 that came out around the same time.

Needless to say, I've got no interest in Modern Warfare 3. CoD is pretty played out. Shooters in general are kind of played out. The only FPS that's really on my radar at all right now is FEAR 3, and even that I doubt will be as good as the first two.

Surprisingly, World at War was fun. Modern Warfare 2 was short and too much of an adrenaline rush. Black Ops was longer but still had that summer-movie-rush-feel. Am I looking forward to MW3? It's on my to-do list but it's not a priority. I am interested in Battlefield 3, but I'm kinda losing interest in multiplayer and I don't know if the single player will stand up. Playing Bad Company 2 did satisfy some desires but like I said, I'm losing interest in multiplayer these days.

As for DNF...I might wait till it goes on sale. Watching the gameplay videos haven't really made me jump out of my seat to go buy this game. I'm looking at it more as a "play it if I'm bored"-game.

And since someone brought it up, I'll say this in general about shooters these day, WHAT THE FRAK is with this 2-weapon crap these days? I think I could carry 2 primaries and a secondary (i.e., a freakin pistol). I really don't understand why the developers are designing things this way. Multiplayer I can understand (and would definitely agree), but in single player????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only FPS that's really on my radar at all right now is FEAR 3, and even that I doubt will be as good as the first two.

I liked the first one, but I couldn't even finish the second. I'm also not a battlefield fan either, so really MW3 is the only thing to look forward too until bioshock infinite come out.

actually rage looks kind of good too but I'm not really sure yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My problem with FEAR is this: Every man-hour Monolith spends on FEAR is a man-hour they AREN'T spending on Shogo Freaking 2!

...

What? I can't be the ONLY person that really really liked Shogo...

Actually, the new one isn't being developed by Monolith, so you can't blame the lack of Shogo on this one.

Speaking of, in anticipation of the new one, Steam is selling the whole series thus far, including expansions and DLC, for $10.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lol i posted that on facebook, very true and makes you think we are near the end of the road in a lot of places. And in response to Dynaman it's Cracked, all their articles are like that. Providing insight with crass comedy.

I read it before I had to do some travelling recently. I'm one of those guys that can appreciate Cracked's "articles" every now and then.

But you want comedy? I'm visiting a US Air Force Base and the internet service on the base's billeting won't allow me to visit Cracked. I get the notification: "Your page is blocked due to a security policy that prohibits access to Category Violence"

Really? On a US military base? After roughly 10 years of continuous combat operations? :lol:

As for FPS, the last COD game I was a fan of was MW1. I think Activision regressed the series with MW2 and Black Ops.

However, I have high hopes for Battlefield 3. I've been a longtime fan of BF2 and BF2142. What I liked from them was the broader spectrum of combat compared to a pure infantry FPS like COD. Vehicles, both air and ground, add alot of extra dimensions to the fighting. Even in the vehicles, you have equivalents of Jeeps / Humvees, APCs, tanks, trucks, mobile AAA, transport helos, attack helos, jets, etc. All to go alongside infantry classes equipped with varying small arms and specialist equipment. I've had alot of fun knocking out tanks while teammates cover me against infantry attacks. Or vice versa. The maps tend to be larger and you frequently will see them have a nice balance of open areas as well as dense terrain. Equally fun for fighting as infantry or piloting / crewing a vehicle.

That's why I've been a bigger fan of the BF franchise, and hope DICE can improve upon the core BF series.

Edited by Warmaker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hate BF games almost entirely because of vehicles. In every game I've played with vehicles, a normal match goes the same way every time. 3~5 guys on each team grab all the good vehicles and hog them for the entire game and the people who don't spend the rest of the game dieing over and over until the clock runs out or they rage-quit. Of course I don't like, nor am I any good at operating vehicles in non-driving/piloting games so even when I can snag a decent vehicle that lasts for all of for all of 5~30 seconds before whatever it is I'm driving explodes.

I've also never liked what vehicles do to map design either. Vehicle maps always end up as a massive open field with a hand full of postage stamp sized clusters of buildings scattered about the area. Again, if you don't have a vehicle you spend 90% of your time running huge distances trying to get from one tiny building cluster to another invariably being picked off by tanks, helicopters, and the occasional camping sniper.

the only game I've ever been even sort of ok with vehicles has been the halo series simply because you're such an overpowered one man army in multiplayer it's fairly easy to take out any vehicle single-handedly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They still bring extra dimensions to the maps. Far more than from what I've seen with the COD series.

If you've never bothered trying to get better with the vehicles, then that's you. But it never stopped us from having fun with the infantry combat either. I was horrible with vehicles but I stuck to it, especially the helos and jets (helos take more practice).

Like I said, in one game and on any map, you'll have the prospects for both infantry AND vehicle based combat. In the same game, in the same maps. It can be easy to believe that vehicles absolutely dominate BF games... but then you've probably never met players who are very good at knocking out armor and aircraft. Traditionally for me in the BF series, Sniping is where I excel and AT duties comes second.

Another reason why I like the BF series is the emphasis on team play and composition. Too heavy a focus on certain aspects of classes will make your team vulnerable to something. Too heavy a focus on AT players opens you up to classes like assault and snipers. Too heavy a focus on classes with heavy emphasis on anti-pesonnel / small arms will make you vulnerable to armor and such. Then you've got the engineers to repair vehicles, repair bridges that have been destroyed / demolished, and the traditional support (resupply ammo) and medics.

I'll put it like this: COD is a one-trick pony (infantry only) while the BF series offer more angles of combat in the games. In small, medium, or large maps, far more variety is offered in BF games than the small maps and tiny number of players that have become staple with the advent of MW2.

Hard to beat moments like being one of the last group of defenders holding a victory point and in the process of being overrun. In the last second, teammates arrive with a helicopter gunship laying down devastating fire all the while a transport helicopter drops off a squad of infantry teammates to join in and help out.

Edited by Warmaker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hate BF games almost entirely because of vehicles. In every game I've played with vehicles, a normal match goes the same way every time. 3~5 guys on each team grab all the good vehicles and hog them for the entire game and the people who don't spend the rest of the game dieing over and over until the clock runs out or they rage-quit. Of course I don't like, nor am I any good at operating vehicles in non-driving/piloting games so even when I can snag a decent vehicle that lasts for all of for all of 5~30 seconds before whatever it is I'm driving explodes.

I've also never liked what vehicles do to map design either. Vehicle maps always end up as a massive open field with a hand full of postage stamp sized clusters of buildings scattered about the area. Again, if you don't have a vehicle you spend 90% of your time running huge distances trying to get from one tiny building cluster to another invariably being picked off by tanks, helicopters, and the occasional camping sniper.

the only game I've ever been even sort of ok with vehicles has been the halo series simply because you're such an overpowered one man army in multiplayer it's fairly easy to take out any vehicle single-handedly.

Warhawk did vehicles well. You could still play without one, and at times it was better not to be in one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...