toblix

I was about to start L4D2, and this happened:

If you liked Uncharted 1, prepare to be blown away by Uncharted 2.

Yeah, they're pretty weird. It's like, why would the down button be below the others? What is this, some crazy keyboard?

I've just arrived in Venezia, and the first mission was very different from everything else I've done so far. The game is still managing to feel fresh, even despite its very limited number of mechanics. I would really like for someone with a keen insight in game design to really identify what kind of magic must have taken place between AC1 and AC2. If I were a big fat money man asked to decide if AC1 got a sequel, I'd deny them any money at all, on account on the fact that the game was such a failure in even the most basic of ways. However, the sequel, while still very similar to the first one, feels like a very different game. To be fair, I'm not really sure any more what features are new, and which have just changed, but either something fundamental been changed, and I'm not seeing it, or the sum of all the little improvements (improved this and that, added RPG elements, etc) have brought out whatever awesomeness was not evident in the first game. Also, having synced a couple of viewpoints in Venezia, the game says I've still done just over half of them. Either Venezia is that much bigger than the others, or there's another city waiting.

Dont' you mean at least he's not a fraction?

Cool, thanks. I did a search for TheJames, and found a guy named TheJamesKiller. Now I'm glad I didn't add him, since all signs point to him being an actual killer.

Is that an old shoe in the lower right corner?

Okay, why doesn't it detect my Steam friends? Does everyone get new names in this game? What names should I search for to add peoples?

I wonder when that picture was taken.

Oh, so buildings can actually collapse? It seemed to me that every discrete wall section could be blown up, and that's that. That reminds me of that awesome turn-based squad shooter from WW2 that was awesome and let you blow up entire buildings but then sucked when they introduced robot pants. "Metal"... something? No.

Well that was fun. It felt very much like an improved sequel to BF2142. It still had a bit of that special "barely-working," "on-the-verge-of-blue-screening" feeling that the Battlefields have had from day one, although it seems they're managing to squeeze in a little bit more of polish-time between each release. I've always been a fan of the soundscape of the Battlefields, and this one was also great. At first, I'm thinking "ah, typical battlefield ambience," just like in, say, the Call of Duties, but then it hits me that all the sounds are actual combat noise from around me, and that's pretty cool. I didn't get to experience the destructable buildings, but I saw a weird house that had every wall section blown in with the exact same hole. Only the wooden girders between each hole held up the floors above. I guess it's not exactly a house demolition simulator.

So I guess I should buy this or what?

Thanks for the tip!

Yup, also logged in with my Google account too, as well. Nice job so far. Really digging the post editor, however the experience is greatly marred by the topmost header not being a linked to the main page.:tdown::tdown::tdown:

Whenever you guys decide on a new multithumb game, let me know and I will purchase it.

AWESOME RACING FOR PEOPLE FROM ALL WALKS OF LIFE

This is so simple, it sounds right.

Looks cool, but I'm unable to sign in with both Google and Yahoo! Keep us posted.

Now I regret the whole thing. It wasn't meant as a criticism. I don't know anything about writing. For God's sake, I once liked the first half of a Dean Koontz book!

old.idlethumbs.net? What's that all about?

It's interesting that games still have unwritten rules that players have to follow in order to make it fun for everyone. It's like the Geneva Convention... for gamerz. Only instead of telling you to not shooting Red Cross guys it tells you to not camp, or not use specific features and bugs. A lot of it is understandable -- if a bug is discovered, it shouldn't be abused, so that the developers can get it fixed and issue a patch. A lot of it, though, I don't get. If you're playing the game within its limitations and not exploiting bugs, etc., and as long as a particular session doesn't have some specific gentleman's agreement, like only knives, how can what you're doing be wrong? For example, if the game allows you to camp, and it gives you an advantage, why shouldn't you? If it's "wrong," the game designers should be the ones to decide, and then not let you do that. Of course, this argument is based on a naïve model that assumes everyone plays to win and not to annoy or spoil the game for someone else.

I'm not a writer, but... have you tried replacing "Charlie Burkowitz" with "Balthazar"?

Apology... NOT ACCEPTED I'm only kidding. Don't worry about it, you'll need to use tons more expletives to hurt me. For example, you would have to say something like: "AKA: Your stupid life," or "It is a fact that your life is fiction." Bonus knowledge: If you switch to courier, when you write it's like a robot talking.

That really hurts.

Maybe they were doing research for Left4Deaf.