thestalkinghead

yeah i am a bit tired of retro style but this aint that, it is a bit kooky... yeah i used the word kooky but maybe if you lump everything kooky or quirky into one thing you could get tired of them, dartmonkey my recommendation would just be to ignore those types of games, nobody says you have to like them, in my opinion indie games doesn't mean weird games (sure there are a lot of weird indie games) there are lots of indie games of all kinds of genres and there are lots that are cheerful and sincere, maybe you just associate the term indie with hipsters and imagine that there is some bullshit hidden meaning or nod in all indie games when really that is only a small section (as small as the hipster demographic) of what indie games have to offer

yeah i guess it is weird when an issue like that just comes out of nowhere

so some people are racist and didn't want a black guy in a game, were you surprised by that? or was it just particularly horrible?

there are so many indie games that you have to just keep looking untill you find one that is interesting for you, but this looks kinda interesting but it would depend on the price as to whether i would buy is as i can only imaging a couple of hours of interest for me, but i think that is one of the great things about indie games is that they are cheap enough just to buy as an experience or just a one off play and they don't all need to be more than that

yeah it's weird i thought most people that still like nintendo believe they're still the best consoles ever, but basically nintendo are firmly aimed at the "my first console market" and do/did well for that target market, most nintendo games are good for your first game and no doubt create future gamers, but i think even the kids these days want a tablet more than a console so nintendo are on shaky ground

i also learned about that on the walking dead forums, but people aren't happy that it was based on a book that specifically says about how only in hollywood movies do zombies run and not only can they run in it but they do this i heard the zombies referred to as zoombies because they aren't proper zombies

yeah, is it actually good or does it just have an incredibly massive marketing budget

most people know that things will change with consoles, but also most people can't afford to buy every console so they want to make a good choice, i would say at the moment the best choice is the PS4, but we will see

the ratings are based on the special requests by the client so the other ratings aren't really connected, like it, one thing i would like is the pouncing on guard thing to be stealthy if done from behind because if i pounce on someone they see my face so i felt compelled to kill them if they saw my face

maybe that would help with prison architect but unless you can individually deal with prisoners they would still just be part of the crowd, and the way i see it is if i have to imagine it i may aswell not play it and just entirely imagine it because my imagination will always beat the game, i think this whole idea of story creation in a simulation is just a way for journalist to fill pages not an actual feature in a game, i like to experiment and mess around with mechanics and maybe set my own goals which some may describe as a story but i wouldn't

i like all kinds of simulations in games and the more the merrier in my opinion, however i don't think pure simulation always works well, i think there should always be a safety net in the simulation that doesn't allow the game to become broken, like a game where you could hunt an animal to extinction would be bad, there should always be a hidden magic couple that breed and don't allow extinction because what if just by starting the simulation you end up with a non sustainable ecosystem, in real life evolution and adaptation happens making a generally balanced self correcting ecosystem, but in a game if you programme the antelope AI and the lion AI for specific behaviours the antelope won't adapt or change their behavior because the lions started the simulation in an advantageous position and the lion AI won't change accordingly the lions will just kill all the antelope and then they will all die of starvation or just move on to the next prey, you could fix that with even more complex simulation, but until we get to the holodeck level of simulation there will always need to be some kind of safety net. generally i want to see the results of the simulation else there isn't much point in doing it, and also sometimes complex simulation ends up just making something simple, like in prison architect the developers are talking about the prisoners as individuals with their own personal (hidden) traits but i am playing a game with like 40+ "individuals" in it but they just become a crowd so their individuality is gone, it's the same with dwarf fortress, each dwarf has an insane level of traits and individual preferences, but because i play the game from a big picture perspective their individual needs and preferences are meaningless they are just part of a big crowd that has crowd needs and preferences, i guess that is more a psychology thing than simulation thing but I'm a man not a machine so the psychology of the player should be something to concentrate on along side the simulation

i like the idea of breeding in any game especially the idea of selective breeding for traits and features, i would play a game entirely based on that, so i think it's cool that this will be a feature in the strategic part of the game, also the relic idea is cool, it turns something that would just be a 100% devastating loss into a 50/50 loss/reward thing

i think it is probably something similar to what syntheticgerbil said, as in a face with strong features are easier to do and even sculpture-ers (is there a word for them) would rather sculpt a face with strong features rather than soft features because it is more interesting (and easier) and i don't know really but generally i don't find masculine features on a womans face attractive (a totally subjective and personal opinion) but a strong jawline is one masculine feature i actually do find attractive in a woman and maybe it's not just me, so basically you seem to be asking "why are female characters in video games being designed to be attractive?" and basically the answer is because it is attractive

you need crouching in an fps shooter game for many reasons (just like you need jumping), maybe the most important reason is because it is something a real person can do and would do in in the scenarios presented in an FPS shooter, then there are tactical reason like cover and more precise aiming, then there are things like the ability to design a level that has a small tunnel like things in it etc. a demonstration (man) of why crouching in TF2 is important without crouching i couldn't have hid behind the cart (simultaneously becoming a target and well covered) and basically crouching feels like a natural thing to do so without it it feels frustrating just like no jump (which is also a game equivalent of climbing)

i think in COD2 the recharging health thing actually worked well with the other mechanics of the game, because buildings had infinitely respawning enemies inside them until you pushed forwards and cleared the building, so just hiding and picking of the enemies from a distance would be a useless tactic, it forces you to take risks and push forwards, so your infinite health recharge was countered by the infinite enemies, but games where there aren't infinite enemies there is no counter to your infinite health recharge except spamming you with a million enemies or having ones that do extreme damage

it isn't, the maps in quake and duke nukem aren't the same, the tone isn't the same, the mechanics aren't the same and the objectives aren't the same, obviously lots of games are similar, but these two are just so similar that if feels like a weak argument to just say "they are just the same genre" when really they are just clones of the same thing, basically if you had to pay for both and DOTA 2 was the sequel to LoL i would be just as annoyed about it as i was when L4D "2" came out, as in they aren't different enough to count as different games, a patch could have done the same thing

that reminds me, the great thing about humble bundle is i get the soundtrack to download

yeah that sniper mission in MW on veteran difficulty was ................ frustrating, at that level of difficulty i had to figure out how to break the game basically, i hid in a small hut thing near were the chopper lands and just threw every grenade that came near me away and then when the time came just threw all my grenades and hoped i didn't get killed before i got to da chopper

well i think that is bullshit, the normal difficulty should be the difficulty it is meant to be played, hard mode should be hard mode not the secret intended difficulty, and i didn't say it should be easy (that's easy mode) or i should be "able to stride through the narrative without any roadblocks" i said "i don't want to be annoyingly frustrated by the hard parts" (i have completed COD 1,2, waw and MW on veteran difficulty and that can get annoyingly frustrating), meaning that while i still want a challenge it should be balanced and play tested so it isn't just irritatingly hard, that is what the harder difficulties are for.

i actually sort of thought of it that way, but when i am wandering about in the wilderness (in real life) i like to touch things and climb on things, so that is why i thought a jump button and more interaction would be good, because even though generally in real life i would stick to paths, if i see something interesting or want a better view of things i would be able to get off the path and climb on things

yeah i forgot about the engineer, but the engineer is a bit too formulaic, to be a good engineer means basically doing the exact same thing every match (of the same map), there isn't much variety, i started off playing engineer but it soon became to repetative

yeah i like support classes in most multiplayer games, in real life sports i prefer stopping the other team from winning rather than me being the one doing the winning, but most multiplayer games don't really support that style of play, in battlefield i like support or medic, but in say team fortress 2 the only support class is the medic and that guy is really only designed to help one person so i just prefer to play soldier and capture the points or push the cart while other people concentrate on their sacred K/d ratio

actually i think that is spot on I'm more of a playing the game should be fun rather than a winning the game should be fun kind of guy

i gave DOTA 2 a go (only a few games) and basically LOL and DOTA 2 are exactly the same game i can't believe they can get away with it, i guess if the game is free people don't mind as much if they are just clones, i think what gets people interested in it is buying the items and making perfect builds for each character, but it is a bit of a grind and basically every game is the same, i know this isn't my type of game so that was a bit critical, but i really want to know what is so appealing about it to people, i got no satisfaction in killing the other players and not at all frustrated by getting killed and then the game was over, what am i missing? Edit: i had another read through of what people were saying here and i guess there is more variation in what the items do in DOTA 2 but that isn't really different enough for me not to think of them as the same game, and i think the main reason this type of game doesn't appeal to me is the micromanagement i prefer the passive items i can be bothered to activate them, i don't like the emphasis on last hit because if i play a team based game i think it should be about what you contribute to the team not about what you selfishly take for yourself like in a team based FPS i don't like an emphasis in K/D ratio it should be about what you contribute to the team and i think that is my problem with these games i can only be selfish and do things like get the last hit in single player games so maybe if there were a single player LOMA (not just a bot match) i could be more interested in the mechanics and the micromanagement

when i first play a game, i don't want to be annoyingly frustrated by the hard parts, i want to play through the game and have the intended experience, i think normal setting of difficulty should be exactly as hard as the game was intended and harder difficulties should be there for the second playthrough when you know exactly what will happen, i think easter eggs and things like that are for the second playthrough of a game, because i want the first playthrough of a game to be a flowing narrative (even action games) and not a stop and start search every crevice and alleyway find every easter egg and click on everything ten times "game" unless that is the intended game experience and Twig my biggest complaint about max payne 3 was its lack of quick saves (they used to have multiple quicksave slots), checkpoints are supposed to help you if you forget to save not punish you by forcing you to repeat the same actions over and over again, at least with that type of game anyway