Gabbo

Members
  • Content count

    139
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Gabbo


  1. All art has victory conditions. Just because you got to see the end credits doesn't mean you were able to digest the experience, whether anything the artist was trying to communicate actually stuck. I could never win Inland Empire.

    I just meant that most other forms of entertainment/art will continue without any user input. A game will essentially stop if user input stops. I couldn't at first and only now barely grasp Inland Empire fwiw.


  2. Don't books, poetry, music and movies also have rules? Am I not supposed to read/listen/see it from begin to end, and not jumping to various places? Also, don't movies and books have an outcome?

    It's quite easy to dismiss a medium because it has certain features others don't. You could easily dismiss movies form being art when compared to books because it has sound and pictures.

    Books, music and poetry, etc can be used that way, but there is no set 'rule' that say you have do so. And depending on the work, may be created so that not doing so is just as fulfilling. I wouldn't use music as an example of something you have to listen to from beginning to end, as you can skip between tracks of an album or sections of a song as you please.

    These forms of entertainment do tend to have outcomes, but there are no victory conditions that require anything from the user, where as games have such conditions that must be met to eventually reach the outcome of the game. Not meeting those conditions for a movie won't change its outcome, the credits will still roll if you get up and walk out after 5 minutes. A game will end prematurely (generally death) and the outcome never arrives (other than 'game over', which doesn't conclude the story arc of the game).


  3. I know, but that comes out of nowhere. I'm a playing as a snarky arrogant guy who suddenly becomes the deputy sheriff and runs around going out of his way to save people. The way the game has you wandering around really dampens the feeling of your life being at stake. Going to rescue someone or not doing so should be a big decision, like leaving the safe-room in Left4Dead2 but instead it's fairly casual. Plus, when go help that special agent in the beginning, I go find him and he says, hey help me kill this guy, I'll lay down cover fire, you go do most of the work, and Frank West just does it almost without question.

    I don't know if you're really meant to feel your life is at stake/in serious danger in any immediate sense. The zombies are harmless for the most part, it's the other humans that are dangerous. How would you implement it differently (honest, serious question), so that the stranded people were more of an issue the player has to choose between?

    The last part, that's not all that unusual in a lot of games that have AI teammates. Most have stormtrooper aim and can take as much punishment as a small child. I can't explain this other than to artificially make the game harder/fights longer and more focused on the player. If they didn't constrain you, what would you do? You'd be left to wander around and help people. They could have scripted it so Frank wasn't such a pushover, but they took the quickest route to killing things and moving the story along.

    I'd love if you were part of a functioning team and everyone did equal damage to enemies, but then I also enjoyed the smug satisfaction of knowing I, Frank West was better at handling this situation than a rent-a-cop and the Feds.


  4. I never really hated exams too much. Profs generally gave the topics out before hand so we'd know what to study or write on when we all crowded into the halls. I was always nervous before hand but once I sat down and started writing, I was in my zone.

    Of course exams stopped altogether come 4th year becoming papers on topics of my choosing. About equal in difficulty really.


  5. For some reason, I just started playing this game. I like it...but I decided to search for a thread to explain some things. For one, I couldn't figure out why Otis (the janitor) kept telling where survivors were hidden. I didn't really get why I was supposed to care about going out of my way to save them...I don't approve of the way the game uses people like flags in Assassin's Creed or something (in other words, they're checkpoints to be collected on the way toward 100%) and then, when I tried to go help some of the barricaded people they wouldn't even talk to me (granted I had to partially wreck their barricade to get to them, but what else could I have done?).

    Also: did you guys notice you can spit on people by aiming with nothing in your hands and pressing the throw/fire button?

    Otis radios you because you're kind of the defacto go-to guy to get shit done and he wants to see them rescued. They provide you with stat upgrades when you get them back to the safe room but are rather meaningless to the overall plot. So if you're beefed up enough as is, no need to get them.

    I did not notice you could spit on people. I know a a couple special agents who are getting spit on.


  6. The thing is, the story of X-COM is basically Half-Life. There isn't much meat there. There isn't anything there to really merit the revival of the franchise.

    As far as the mechanics go, maybe it would be interesting to have a FPS with a world map and semi-random alien events happening all over the planet that the player has to neutralize, investigate, loot and research. The locales can play out like Hitman or something, but a little more randomized. There is something to this.

    However, the gameplay itself is unique and what people dug about the game to begin with. There is nothing in the mechanics that couldn't effectively be transfered onto the consoles with a little effort and finesse.

    I suspect someone on the money side of the equation had a conniption when the developers couldn't present safe sale figures for games in the similar genre. I hope that if this is the case, they will pull as much of what was interesting into a FPS and at best create some sort of new hybrid genre. Tom Clancy games were clunky and cumbersome and had some convoluted controls that one had to master before doing anything at all. I never could get into those. I hope the new X-COM isn't this.

    Civilization is TBS, and it does well enough to warrant expansions and sequels. What other numbers can the money people look to?

    I do realize there is a world of difference between XCom and Civ.


  7. Well whether they still have it or not doesn't nullify the analogy does it (I'm honestly not sure but I don't think it does)?. Furthermore, it seems safe to assume the planning in this new X-Com game will be on a much smaller scale than that of its predecessors. I think the point is, can they use elements that are characteristic of the spirit if not the specifics of the X-Com series and make a satisfying, if divergent, game. I'm also trying to say that I don't think it should matter that a game is a departure from a series if it's a great game in its own right. I know, it's disappointing to a long time fan of that series...but what are the odds anyone would have made a game that was a lot like the old X-Com games in 2010? Especially when consoles are likely to be the main SKU or at least a strong consideration in terms of the design.

    The first part of my comment is lamenting the change Ubi has made to those games, no need to dwell on that.

    I think if implemented like a mix of SWAT4 and the pre-mission planning out of the original Rainbow6, 2K could implement some level of the strategic and tactical elements from X-Com.


  8. I have a funny feeling this will be like Fallout 3 where people say: "this isn't going to capture the spirit of its predecessors" but then, despite being fairly different it will be awesome.

    Maybe it will combine shooting and strategy in the way the Tom Clancy games do. where the planning and real-time action are divided up. Then again, I've never played X-Com or any of the Tom Clancy games, so I don't know why I'm typing things in this text box. In any event, I have a good feeling about this game. I hope it doesn't get a bad rap just because of the IP involved (like if it's a good game but doesn't feel like X-Com).

    The planning in most Tom Clancy games has disappeared now for the most part, and was never on the scale that an X-Com game had.


  9. Thanks for using my email as the example to nip the XCom questions in the bud. I get some weird pride out knowing of that.

    I will never send one that's mainly gut reaction while tired and hungry again.

    I don't think what I was trying to get at had to do with XCom so much as use Marin (which my email seemed to think was 'Marine' spelled wrong and autocorrected) as an example of a developer with a successful game and the timing worked out with the e-fury about the news. Does a game need to tell its story from a 1st or 3rd person perspective or use shooter mechanics in order to sell? I say this only because games that take old brands and make new games tends to stick to those gameplay mechanics.

    Could a studio like Marin not use their clout and Take-Two's marketing to jumpstart something like X-Com of old? Pipe dreams from a gamer who suddenly feels old perhaps... I really do hope whatever the hell Marin is working on is excellent and the internet along with my initial reaction, eats severe amounts of crow on this one.

    Oh, and my last name is pronounced 'Grove-nor', but most people initially pronounce it the same as you, so it's all good.


  10. So my PC has an ATI graphics card, which I last had about ten years ago. Everyone knows hardware manufacturers suck the most at making GUI, but I'm still amazed at how ass everything from ATI looks. From the installer splash screen, which has the Windows 95 era 16bit dithered look, to the control panel, which looks like something bundled with Oracle 5 Management Tools.

    I mean look at this:

    <snip>

    Other than the Windows 7 borders, how woul you know this wasn't released in 1998? Two indicators:

    1. ATI's URL wasn't ati.amd.com then.
    2. THE LORD OF THE RINGS ONLINE FREE TRIAL™ had not yet been released so that ATI could bundle them with my fucking graphics card drivers.

    How would I know? How about the drivers actually work. In 1998 they were much more hit or miss. I've never seen a driver installer I would identify as pretty either way. I'd rather they keep the interface simple (KISS) and have it work than it use a fancy GUI and not.


  11. That's actually Triss. :3

    I am pumped for this game. Just recently (finally) finished the first. If they can fix some of the flaws (oh god constant crash-to-desktops) and improve on existing systems (combat could use some beefing up), it will no doubt surpass the first game. Which I love. Yum.

    Given the 'hidden' message at the end of the trailer, it seems like this is what they have in mind.


  12. I have never understood why governments (mine in Australia included) offer tax breaks to game developers. Why is this one industry more worthy of special treatment than any other?

    And as for the Australian game industry, half the companies would probably fold within two days if the tax breaks were rescinded. Surely if an industry can only survive because it receives what is effectively a government subsidy, that's a sign that perhaps it shouldn't exist at all?

    It's not only gaming, at least here in Ontario it's not.

    Does the new tax break system not have some serious stipulations attached to it? I read a bit on it earlier, and it sounds like there may be some hurdles (a points system) to overcome to actually get the breaks. Going to see a lot more games set in Britain with British voice casts me thinks. Not that I mind, would be a nice change of pace.


  13. Incidentally, anyone ever pick-up any Idle Thumbs references in TTG games? I remember 8-Bit Is Enough having something a reference to "The Wizaaaard", but that's about it.

    I picked up on it, but I wasn't sure if I was projecting that into the game as a fan of Idle Thumbs or if they actually put it in a [not so] subtle nod to the 'cast.


  14. I heard many positive things about ARMAII (game by the makers of the original Operation Flahshpoint). I heard many negative things about OF: Dragon Rising (poor console port, etc).

    I say avoid it.

    disclaimer: I've played neither one

    Already own Arma2, was hoping this would be a different approach to the same sort of gameplay. From the sounds of it, I'll save my wallet the trauma.


  15. I think I'd recommend to play this first as well. It's the best of them (judging by the ~15 hours I've played) and if you don't like it, at least you played the best one, and if you do like it, you can go back and play Shadow of Chernobyl (and maybe the prequel Clear Sky too). I don't think it requires you to have played the first game, which takes place right before this. It does make references of course, but I think you don't necessarily have to get them: the zone is a strange place and you're not supposed to know a lot about it. I think maybe the first game actually works quite well as a prequel to Call of Pripyat if you play them in that order.

    Compared to Shadow of Chernobyl, this one improves a lot:

    * larger areas and less linear structure. Although the original game was supposed to be one huge area at first and even have cars, it ended up having relatively small maps and feeling more linear than it should have.

    * no timed quests -- these annoyed me to no end in the first game. A lot of the (generated) side quests were timed and I often failed them or had to to go back somewhere earlier than I wanted. In this one I haven't encountered a single timed quest. Well, in some quests a stalker says: meet me here 3 o'clock and we'll go do the quest then, but that doesn't seem very strict, I showed up late at least once.

    * no annoying large respawning automatically hostile bandit groups in places you want to pass several times

    * less bugs

    * just plain better execution

    I'm not sure if the game systems have a lot more emergence possibilities built into them than Shadow of Chernobyl, but these improvements probably help them come out in more ways.

    I haven't played CoP yet, so pardon my ignorance here, but if CoP is all these things the previous two games aren't (sans mods, and of which I've only completed SoC so far), wouldn't that turn people off eventually playing Shadow of Chernobyl and Clear Sky upon completing CoP for the very same reasons you suggest they should play CoP first? Or will it be enough to draw them in


  16. I finished up my first run through of Cryostasis on Wednesday night.

    Playing it back to back with Dead Space, really made me appreciate it and what it was trying to do a lot more than I think it would have otherwise.

    Yes the engine was unoptimized a bit, it would chug at times for no apparent reason (with PhysX off no less.) and this seems to be a common thread among all European games I've come across lately. My system is no slouch, so this really shouldn't have been an issue. Not really a detraction of this game in particular, but the state of a lot of games lately. The game was shorter than I would have liked, but the story and small cast of characters had me engaged throughout its short run-time. I really wanted to know how the two stories tied together/what happened to ship and its crew of mutated freaks. Linear as all get up, but I was happy to be lead along for this particular tale. That no one person was the 'bad guy' more than any other (at least in the flashbacks) and that I had some control over this was also a nice change of pace. I wasn't necessarily any more scared in this than I was than in, say, Dead Space, but the feeling of depression, dread and tension that runs throughout was also more engaging than Dead Space's atmosphere. I did find the characters rather menacing as well, especially the spiders. I hate games that use insects. I don't know why but they get to me much more than the average zombie/demon/terrorist ever does. Whoever came up with those deserves a pat on the back for a job well done.

    The body temperature mechanic could go either way. I never felt like I was in any real danger of dying due to the cold. If it had thrown me outside more often, I might have felt truly worried. It made for an interesting tweak on health packs (no regenerating health thankfully) and felt natural given that I was on a ship stuck in the Arctic, that heat would inevitably play a role in my survival so it's really give or take.

    I would love to see more games take a philosophical approach to their narratives, and hope whatever Action Forms does next is this good.


  17. Finished Dead Space (PC) recently, and I'm going to draw some ire with this, but it just wasn't as amazing as it was made out to be. A few interesting set pieces with decent atmosphere in places that ended up being repetitive fetch quests with very few actual scares in it. And no, having a creature bust through a wall/door/window/vent as the music has once again gone dropped out to emphasize that a monster is about to jump out of the closet is not scary. It was far scarier when all I heard were rumblings or voices, but the corridors were completely empty and nothing jumped out at me.

    The controls worked well enough, and it looked good (despite constant tearing), but I don't think those two things alone make up for the weakly strung together plot and blah gameplay.