pilottobombadier

Members
  • Content count

    1208
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About pilottobombadier

  • Rank
    Stained Class King
  1. I agree completely with Half-Life, but I have to say, you're being pretty abrasive about System Shock 2; sorry, but it's not all that and a bag of chips, either. Unless you have the foresight to dump all of your nanites into Alien Weapon skill or whatever it was called, you were screwed. I get it, it's made to be replayed. However, forcing a replay 90% through the game is taking it too far. That is awful game design, particularly for a game that claims to be an RPG. Never mind that weapons and equipment break down too easily, and are not overly effective for the mostpart. I know. I cheated my way through and have used every weapon in the game; they're very poorly balanced. That said, I would say that Bioshock is a spiritual successor to System Shock 1 that can't fully do it justice, and for these reasons: 1) Comparing Andrew Ryan to Shodan is like comparing a snuggly Persian kitten to a fully grown Siberian tiger with a taste for human flesh. 2) Not claustrophobic enough 3) The logs were way, way to superfluous. They really didn't help progress the back story like they did in either System Shock game. While story itself is mostly superficial, the way in which it was used in the System Shock games helped to develop the growing sense of dread, which was part of the atmosphere in the game. I think all of the Bioshock games have failed miserably here. Now, to Half-Life: Valve was so focused on story and making the game cinematic that they breached the fourth wall too many times, at least for an FPS. This is also the same problem with Half-Life 2. And it's a symptom of all of hte games that emulate this, from Call of Duty, to Halo, right to Bio-Shock And, imo, they were even moreso in Half-Life 2 because they wanted to show off their gravity gun "tech". Half-Life 1 also had poor weapon balance - or at least most of the weapons felt a lot weaker than they should. Half-Life 2 is still the superior game, though. I'm not going to touch Call of Duty; I think it's been given lots of exposure; it really is same shit different package. I am going to say that Grand Theft Auto 3 is definitely overrated. This is due to the shit controls. I mean, heaven forbid you got in a huge gunfight; circle-strafing didn't work and the autoaim was broken, period. I'd mention the graphics, but it was made for the PS2. Secret of Mana, as others have mentioned, has been getting a lot of hype again. My condolences to the guy who paid through the nose ordering it. The game is quite mediocre. It has a lot of innovative features but...well, Secret of Evermore did it better. Because those features worked well; less grinding and all of that. I say mention of FF2 as being overrated - no. it's not. It wasn't received well in the west, and for good reason - it sucks. It's a grindfest that limits your progress to certain story thresholds, much like FF13 - but not quite as limiting. That's right, it's less fucked up than 13. The most overrated Final Fantasy game is probably 10; 7's pretty heavily overrated, but it's not on rails. I gave up on 10 probably about 15 hours through when I got stuck on a boss, hit an FAQ and saw how the game progressed. Basically, I thought "Okay, I'm not grinding through this only to have to play in a straight line for 40 hours." Blitzball is also incredibly boring; I have no idea how anyone got into it. It progresses slowly and plays unfairly; it's a core minigame that feels like an afterthought, which is pretty sad. Legend of Zelda Majora's Mask isn't just overrated; the game is terrible. You have something like 75 minutes to do anything important, and if you're late, the game essentially resets to the beginning of the task, and all progress on/during it is lost. IMO, exploration has been central to the Zelda games, and that completely ruins it. Eventually, you can overcome it, however you have to get there first. Anyway, I think I've been jumping on a few bandwagons here, so I'll change gears: The Diablo series is pretty overrated, IMO. Diablo 3 at least changes things up with how abilities can be hotkeyed and whatnot, but it's too far behind the Sacred series in that regard, and it's too far behind the rest of the RPG world in terms of making your own gear. Quake is also highly overrated. This is mostly due to its cramped levels and terrible weapon balance. The soundtrack is also quite boring, but at least you can play your own music. And no game should EVER be a race for one kind of weapon (right, Counter-Strike?), ever. Plus, the game was fucking ugly. I'm surprised that Quake is considered the FPS that launched the genre into 3D.
  2. This update is fairly simple. I'm nearly finished (so far) with the secondary weapons; I just need to do the different variations of the single-shot 40mm grenade launcher and then it'll be over and done with, and then I'll be able to move on to the "primary" weapons. So far, excluding 40mm grenade launcher variants, this brings the weapons count to 25. Other weapons that will have variations are a few of the primary assault rifles with secondary attacks and the magazine-fed semiautomatic grenade-launchers. I don't think I'm going to give this treatment to shotguns, at least not yet. Other than exploding shells and the like, I don't think that there is anything particularly meaningful that can be done with them in that manner, at least where demons and zombies come into play. I could be wrong; you can use pain states for a whole lot of special purposes in EDGE, but it doesn't mean that it should be done. We'll see. If anyone has any ideas contribute, I'm open to most suggestions.
  3. I'm unsure if I can add anything to the formula, but I'm going to try. There are things I enjoy about Call of Duty, but the things that I don't are what completely drag it down. What I like about it is ultimately the alternative game modes. That's far out-weighed by what I don't. Level design is no better or worse than most other shooters. Thanks to Half-Life and Halo, most FPS's are extremely linear in terms of level design. However, that was 1998 and 2001 respectively. That shit has to stop. Whether or not it's multiplayer-centric, just about every one of its peers actually does it better. Call of Duty, however, is more accessible because ultimately, the weapons are all the same, much like Battlefield Bad Company. In terms of movement and gameplay mechanics, Call of Duty is in about the same place as the first Halo game with half the actual depth. What it seems to have going for it is a better teamplay mechanic. That's really about it. Unfortunately, your team mates are often gibbering idiots slinging as many racial slurs as bullets. And that's why the hate is legit.
  4. To let you know that it's really not a joke, here is the first update: I've just finished editing the sprites for the automatic shotgun, I'm pretty satisfied with the edit. I will still be using my old drop-down reload thing. This is actually how I want it to work. Think of it as my tribute to GoldenEye, in a way. It also keeps the action flowing because this is still going to be Doom with reloads, and the weapons are really getting toned down; the .50 magnum (AKA Desert Eagle) isn't going to kill a Zombieman in one hit (and splatter the poor motherfucker) So, to elaborate on what I have in mind, Lock and Load will probably get a name change because while there are going to be a lot of guns, it's not about how many you carry, so much as what you carry and how you use it; yes, this is also a gameplay mod. It's also going to be a framework as it were for world design with this mod. Now, the cat is out of the bag. Starting with the weapons, every weapon is going to have a pick-up script activated with the space bar; you're going to have options depending on what you're carrying. You will have the option to pick it up (and swap with what you might have), just take the ammo, or leave it. I have also built a menu template for other interactions. Right now, the mod is based on EDGE 1.35 which, as I recall, only allows seven menu options, but I'm going to see how far I can push that; I doubt that sub-menus are going to be out of the question, but when it comes to that (I'm not quite ready to build that framework yet), I'll find out for sure. Corpses will also be search-able, so if you don't search a freshly-killed enemy, you aren't going to get their ammo. Enemies themselves will be randomised based on class when playing anything intended to work with the vanilla IWADS, so the regular zombie guy is basically going to have a few different variants; this will help make it possible to access all of the different weapons when playing anything meant to work with Doom, Doom 2 and Final Doom. I'll do the same with weapons, but that's probably going to need a lot of testing to ensure that anything isn't made way too easy or impossibly hard. I have already determined my weapon classes, though. Each new enemy and weapon is also going to have an individual ID for placement in individual maps, hubs or episodes. Now, I suppose that I could use Lock and Load 5 as my framework, but frankly, as there are too many balance issues and I basically just shat it out (although, admittedly, I personally enjoyed it quite a lot, I recall that wasn't the case with other people who played it). Regarding how much I will be re-using from previous versions, a lot of weapons will make it back, but there's going to be some new stuff, too. Anyway, more to come as it comes. Expect updates sporadically, but they'll come as I have anything meaningful to post.
  5. Suprise! It still uses EDGE (soon to migrage to 3DGE once a working inventory is available). Features: •Interactive weapons, equipment and corpses •More tactical weapon inventory (limited to 5 or 6 slots; the remaining will be used for intended equipment inventory items) •More guns and shit The ultimate goal is to address many of the gameplay failings of the last...well, five iterations and ultimately create something to build upon for total conversions and whatnot. That's it for now. I'll let your imaginations swirl.
  6. 1) Balanced gameplay (important for all genres) 2) Varied gameplay 3) Open, and rewarding for being so 4) Highly interactive 5) Awesome firepower - modifiable if possible :D 6) Interesting enemies 7) Excellent and varied level design 8) Deep singleplayer AND co-op.
  7. I agree, it should be a new engine with new ideas, and not the exact same conceptual armoury since Quake 3. I think it would benefit from classic elements, though, such as the key hunt, running as hell and fighting large groups of enemies. However, it also needs its own puzzles, high levels of interactivity (unlike most games today) and co-op as part of the multiplayer suite.
  8. Relapse didn't exactly suck, though. I think Al's starting to realize that it's same shit different day with a candidate from either party. Romney's an asshole and Obama's a lame duck; personally, I don't like either, but Obama clearly hates Harper, so he's already in my good books.
  9. I recall a statement about opinions and assholes...
  10. I disagree. Duke Nukem Forever was extremely funny. I actually liked the game quite a bit myself.
  11. My spin on the whole debate: 1: On the point of violence: I disagree - very strongly, actually - that a person loses their right to be understood once the resort to violence. You have to understand that people resort to violence because the power of dialogue is either lost, unavailable or has been taken away. In that regard, understanding is more important than ever. This is one of the most pathetic and terrible concepts of our culture, the complete psychological downgrade of the power of violence - the first power and THE final say. At the end of the day, when all avenues have been exhausted, violence will be successful. It's not like bin Laden was negotiated down, was it? It wasn't like WWII was settled over a pint and a joke. And it's not like the Vietnamese won their personal freedom from colonial attitudes with their charm. 2: Cherrypicking: Radicals do it, too. Radical followers take the bits they like to justify what their doing, and radical leaders take the bits that they like and twist the ones they don't to manipulate decent people to do horrible fucking things. 3: The west and attitudes toward religion: really don't get it because everything has been mashed together. We've created a lot of behavioural philosophies (such as the one regarding violence) that are extremely self-destructive in the name of "Improving Society", and for all of our alleged acceptance, WE'RE still a bunch of ignorant savages. However, our preferred power exclusion and verbal/mental abuse, not violence. The damage is much worse because it's covert - and it makes our opponents act covertly - and they do, as we've seen. Now, that said, for all of these Muslims' desires for Sharia Law, those samplings are taken from the legal voters - most of which who are first- and second-generation. Regardless of their desires, no sane western culture is going to implement it. The Muslims think it's okay to give Jews and Christians their own sets of non-secular laws in their countries, but they forget that these laws are very similar, and are also, as far as we're (and anyone with a sense of ethics and fairness) concerned, ALL bullshit. 4: On liberalising: This isn't going to solve the problem. Violence is actually half of the answer here. The reason for this is because the people funding these assholes need to disappear. But, we also need to change our attitudes in dealing with Asian Muslims. I mean, c'mon, only those disposable princes are benefitting from the oil fields. We expect them to respect as as humans, but our business - which, really, is the foremost dimplomat - does not. 5: On censorship: It needs to be exercised in this case. Everyone has a right to say what they want, but not without consequence. That the city is allowing this puts both the creator of these posters and the city in an actionable position. These attitudes belong in the privacy of one's home, and nowhere else. 6: On reigning in violence - this can either be done by fear or respect. If you remove the elements that make these people afraid and show them that you will protect and nurture them, you win. If you bomb the fuck out of them, you win temporarily - and ultimately lose even harder. Either way, violence will be a necessity. But as long as you don't target the innocent, it will be appreciated and you will be loved.
  12. I find that as gaming goes on, games are getting shallower; I mean, the options between the Elder Scrolls starting at Daggerfall - let alone the story modes - have usually been less than more. Call of Duty is also setting a poor example, especially where multiplayer is concerned; while it started with a good model, it requires very little skill and strategy to play versus many other tactical shooters such as Rainbow Six, Far Cry 2 and even Halo. It also sets a very poor example for single-player design. I'm also less than impressed with Gears of War. One of the things that has really pissed me off with modern games design is flash over substance; it's like we're back to the dawn of 3D again when gameplay took a back-seat. But now, it's not to visuals so much as cutscenes and an emphasis on design that "tells a story". I rather liked being given the background and then the right to go willy-nilly and fuck everything up, but that's just me. Ironically, I hate every GTA game except for Vice City and 4. And Bioshock was a slap to the face for everyone who played System Shock 1 and expected a similar experience. Spiritual successor my ass. Anyway, there are modern games that I do like; Borderlands, Far Cry 2, and I still love the Dynasty Warriors games, although things went sideways for awhile there with 6. I guess they'd be more of a throwback, though. I also like Duke Nukem Forever, despite the fact that it couldn't decide which era it belonged in. I also like Halo Reach and ODST; not so much Halo 3. And I love Mercenaries and Just Cause 2. I also really like Syndicate's multiplayer, although now I'm really feeling the drag of only having nine co-op missions. So, while not all modern games suck, there are some design elements that REALLY need to go. These have already been touched on in this discussion, but I think one that has been omitted is the continual limitations imposed in sequels. I really noticed this in the Elder Scrolls and Halo games, but it's not just them. It's even the Grand Theft Auto games. Part of this is to sell expansions, which, frankly, is utter bullshit. 10 years ago, you got a complete game. Now, you have to question the integrity of the developer because of EA, Ubisoft and now Capcom. I think the last great "complete" game that still had an assload of expansions was Borderlands. I suppose Skyrim from a critical standpoint, but it had a nerfed main questline because Bethesda doesn't give a shit anymore, so it's no longer a great series, IMO. The game also really is monotonous as fuck, and in the face of a game like Borderlands, which is a first-person version of Diablo with guns, that's saying a lot. Anyway, Borderlands set a great example - you have a nice meaty main game with some decent - often amusing - distractions with plenty of options, and then you have the expansions. While it ended on a cliffhanger, I actually thought that was a joke. And while the expansions did tie up some loose ends, the game didn't end in a manner that gave you the impression that these were significant. And Borderlands 2 doesn't look to be a jocked-up RPG like Mass Effect 2 was; instead, it clearly gives you more options and freedom than less. I actually heard that the last test run-through was clocked at almost 60 hours. I personally felt that Mass Effect 2 was a terrible sequel that was too focused on forcing you down a narrow path so that you could be sold expansions later on to make that path wider. Which is why I haven't been bothered to buy Mass Effect 3. When it becomes all about business (mainly due to sequelitis), the heart's not in it and we suffer for it. So, I think the problem isn't just limited to design; it's also the business. The publishers are leaving a bad taste in our mouths, too.
  13. And everything you read on the internet is utter truth. So it is written, so it shall be.
  14. Personally, I think this whole concept of people not having to toughen up because they don't have a penis - or do - is utter bullshit. You adapt to whatever environment you think you need to be in. It does not adapt to you. The army is a perfect example. There are strength and endurance requirements that absolutely must be met. There are psychological and skill requirements that must be met. Never mind the guts under the hood. The same goes for every place that you choose to work. If you aren't the boss, if you don't own the show, you're just an actor. Stop being a diva and suck it the fuck up. I'm not saying that certain considerations don't need to be taken, but to insist that the culture needs to change because you're a pretensious self-important git is totally laughable. If I were to work in an office dominated by female culture, I'd put up with the same kind of crap, only sneakier - which, in my thinking, is much more insidious. But if that's the environment I choose to work in, so be it. Politics don't effect me, so I probably won't be in that environment for very long, but I'm not going to knock it because it's not the scene that I want it to be. If it matters so much, strike out on your own. Software development is pretty flexible like that. That's my take on it.
  15. Mine would probably be "christ almighty"