toblix

So, I found out you choose the difficulty when you start the game. How thoroughly retarded. Anyway, I tried one last time, managed to take out all the henchmen with one grenade, then fired a bunch of bullets in him and finished him off with the blade. Now, after some running back and forth between foe and typewriter I'm loaded with bullets and adept at knife-killing. This suddenly became fun again!

Aha! You don't have anything more... specific?

Is it all right for, say, an adventure game to allow you to become stuck because you've given away some item and force you to reload to an earlier point and give a guy something different instead? If not, is it all right for a game to allow you to progress and save the game, even though you have used too much ammo or have too low health to practically be able to progress? It's easy to prevent in adventure games, because everything's controllable and predictable; you either have something or you don't. In games with health and ammo (or any resource that affects difficulty in often hard-to-predict ways), this can lead to the pre-boss storage chambers of for example the Half-Lives, with shelves stocked full of health, grenades and ammo for every weapon, essentially guaranteeing at least some chance of success. Other games, like (it appears) RE4, are more realistic and hardcore. Hey, maybe I spent too many bullets on some easy enemies in the last section, and didn't want to splurge on extra shotgun ammo. I'm fucked, because there's a chainsaw-wielding maniac outside and I have no possibillity of defeating him with what I have. It's not like the clips will just magically appear in a cupboard because the game detects I need them. A while back I started playing a parallel version of the game; a doomed storyline with no chance of a happy ending. I read a while back about the balancing of Half-Life, and how they had these complex models and simulations for "calculating" where to put ammo and health, and making sure the player always had at least enough to survive. These are two completely different schools of thought: one helps the player through the story, the other one just throws you into this world and forces you to figure out shit for yourself. The last one sounds more interesting and "right" to me, but, thinking back, I don't think I've never actually enjoyed games like that. To me, saving the game means I'm actually safe, I've come one step further, and everything I've done I've put behind me; there are no loose ends. In other games it's just a way of letting you pause playing for a while. When you reload, you're still fucked up the ass. Does anyone know what the differences are between RE4's difficulty settings?

The country music was awesome in SA. Of course it wouldn't fit in a city-only game like GTAIV, but in SA it fit like ze glove.

Wait, running away is a working tactic in this game? I thought the point was to kill everyone. Won't he just chase me everywhere? I managed to hit him with a grenade, then shoot him in the face with all my bullets, but even then he continued to not be dead. Uh, this guy has a name? Is it possible we're talking about some sort of boss here? This guy seemed like just another bad guy, only with a chainsaw and lots of health. I'll go look for a shotgun.

Oh my gosh, I just met the first chainsaw guy! Any tips on how to kill one with a grenade and 14 bullets? In games with hit-based damage, I always wait for people to resume their normal approach animation before shooting, since I have the impression I do more damage then, like they can't take damage when they're "busy" bending over in pain or lying down.

What a piece of shit. Just like with Cloverfield, I could pull a better first-person movie out of my own asshole.

You're completely right. I managed to not do that for a while, but I was slipping, slowly but surely. Thanks for intervening!

Aaanyway, just picked this up again, and I'm at the place where I've just met the flasher who sells guns and there's the village with rope bridges and fucking zillions of bad guys. I've tried a couple of times now, and I always think I'm safe when I hear a hissing fuse from some unidentfiable location, and I try to turn and look around and then the fucking cunt piece of shit slow turning and non-strafing cocksucking piece of shit-- Let me rephrase my question: Is the awesome gameplay style of letting you do something that takes a while and then just kill you off so you have to restart representative of most of this game? It's awesome, and with the exception of slow turning and non-strafing fucking fuck, the controls are some of the best I've used, and the combat is super, but I get so easily frustrated with games that have you running all the way back to the typewriter before doing every little thing or else you have to restart. I noticed the thread saying the game's usually pretty generous with saving points, so I guess I'll try some more. But this fucking lack of strafing. edit: Please note that I love games. I also love RE4, and although I'm experiencing some challening parts, I still love it.

Awesome!

I think the concept of different versions of the same game is.. I dunno, horrible, or something. I have no problem with completely different versions, like portable versions, where the games can even be different genres, but to make two games with the same name, same main story and same gameplay, but with different levels... why didn't they just make two completely different games, with different names as well?

I'd think it would, yeah. Just to be sure, though, we are talking about the same Double Agent, right? The PC/360/PS3 one?

Really? I found precision to be almost irrelevant compared to the dual-analog combo controls. Don't you adjust your movement speed with the mouse wheel or something on PC?

STOP!STOP!STOP!STOP! Wikipedia article on stop You don't have to do this! There is still time. If you're not yet hooked because of how fun and awesome and beautiful and enchanting it is, stop playing and destroy the game!

I'm just kidding with you because you are describing the level that is the absolute first one, not counting the two stupid-ass tutorial levels which had me worrying about my graphics card the first time I played it. Anyway, I don't really find DA to be any harder than the others. I always spend an insane amount of time on these games because I move so slowly around, deathly afraid to be spotted or heard or noticed. As a result, I've probably been spotted less than 20 times total in all my hours playing the various Splinter Cell games. I play this one like I did the others, and like I played the Commando games of yore: I follow a guy, wait till he's alone, grab him, take him back to the pile of knocked-out guards and choke him onto it. After having progressed to the point where leading the guards back to the guard-pile is getting to be a chore, I just find another dark corner and start a new pile. Also, I have to complete all the little sub-objectives.

Edited for brevity.

I'd rather shit on these: This post is so fucking clever you might not get it.

For a moment there, I thought you were going to join two different sections of a part or vehicle by welding to make one part, but then I realised you just wanted to involuntary detain, hospitalize or otherwise medically treat me as described in The English and Welsh Mental Health Act 1983.

Hey... don't sweat it, man. I think it's shit, and you like it. But you shouldn't.

Hey, man, we all have our differences. Let's just agree to agree that Cloverfield was also a enormous piece of crap.

Having just completed it, I have to say this: Holy shit, this game is awesome! As I got closer to the last challenge, I was thinking "Hey, this seems a tad short", but then... Now to play again with commentary!

I vaguely remember playing MDK2 and fucking loving it. Can't remember much about it, other than there being the three different characters with their own playing style.

You never get any cables with graphics cards.