Video Games Megathread Number A Billion

[Poobah]

You know why GPG never released any additional maps for Demigod? Because they were too expensive to make.

And you keep missing the point. These singleplayer campaigns you regard as token? They cost. A lot.

You familiar with Torchlight? Yeah, indie, right? Should be cheap, right? Cost a couple mil.

The content of my post which you quoted says that I understand that singleplayer is more expensive.

[Max the Mostly Mediocre]

It also says they're token. They aren't.

The DG thing? Not singleplayer. Or, well, there's SP content there, but it's hardly the focus.

[Relic]

I'm about halfway thru the Reach campaign on Heoric and it's pretty awesome. Lot of great "oh shit" moments so far. I'll replay it on Legendary with my brother and then jump into multi where i will proceed to remind Coco that getting married makes you suck at video games.

[Arthmail]

I do have one complaint about Reach at this point. Now i have not been playing as much as i used to, but thats games in general, PC included, so i'm not that far into the game...plus this weekend this missus is gone so i'm going to spend the entirity of it going hard.

Anywho...my complaint is that they have gone and changed key elements of the game in this final chapter. The Warthog always seems to change with every game, so i'm not really surprised its not as good as in Halo:CE. I used to be able to get that thing into an awesome slide and kill me some Covenant with impunity.

No, my problem is that all the baddies have been doubled in strength. Now a couple of Grunts and a few Jackals can pose a lethal threat. They are all expert marksman, and unless its a head shot, they can take multiple rounds. Still, not that bad...i can handle some tweaks.

But the fucking Elites shielding is retarded now. I have dropped a Plasma grenade on them and seen the creature survive...in no other game could that happen. On top of that, they run like fucking cheetahs now and are almost impossible to scope. At one point an entire clip from the assault rifle was enough to bring their shields down, a good rush and a swift smack and bobs your uncle. Now i have to unelash an entire clip, smack them, and then finish them off with my secondary gun or retreat until i can relaod...thats if they don't teleport behind me and hit me to death.

I understand that i'm not the Master Chief, and i certainly do feel more powerful than those ODST...but saints alive, this has gotten alot tougher on heroic. I'm not a fan of changing things so late in the series...it makes me wonder how humanity made a dent in the war at all. Regular marines stand ZERO chance of doing anything to even a grunt unless they hunt in packs.

[Cable]

I do have one complaint about Reach at this point. Now i have not been playing as much as i used to, but thats games in general, PC included, so i'm not that far into the game...plus this weekend this missus is gone so i'm going to spend the entirity of it going hard.

Anywho...my complaint is that they have gone and changed key elements of the game in this final chapter. The Warthog always seems to change with every game, so i'm not really surprised its not as good as in Halo:CE. I used to be able to get that thing into an awesome slide and kill me some Covenant with impunity.

No, my problem is that all the baddies have been doubled in strength. Now a couple of Grunts and a few Jackals can pose a lethal threat. They are all expert marksman, and unless its a head shot, they can take multiple rounds. Still, not that bad...i can handle some tweaks.

But the fucking Elites shielding is retarded now. I have dropped a Plasma grenade on them and seen the creature survive...in no other game could that happen. On top of that, they run like fucking cheetahs now and are almost impossible to scope. At one point an entire clip from the assault rifle was enough to bring their shields down, a good rush and a swift smack and bobs your uncle. Now i have to unelash an entire clip, smack them, and then finish them off with my secondary gun or retreat until i can relaod...thats if they don't teleport behind me and hit me to death.

I understand that i'm not the Master Chief, and i certainly do feel more powerful than those ODST...but saints alive, this has gotten alot tougher on heroic. I'm not a fan of changing things so late in the series...it makes me wonder how humanity made a dent in the war at all. Regular marines stand ZERO chance of doing anything to even a grunt unless they hunt in packs.

I actually like the way the AI responds now and how much tougher it is. If you go back and play the first Halo, it's palpable how formulaic the fighting is. I love the game, it's great fun, but it's not very difficult. As the games have progressed from Halo 2 to Reach now, I find it's becoming increasingly harder and the enemies have become more unpredictable - and I dig that.

Anywho, I finished the campaign and I thought it was great. The multiplayer is fun as well, although I'm totally getting my ass kicked. Not used to being owned so thoroughly in a Halo title but I'm still having fun. Only knock I'd have on the game is the multiplayer maps. Maybe it's just going to take me a while to acclimate and start liking them, but other than a couple I am not too impressed with them. Oh well, here's to another map pack coming out soon.

[Arthmail]

I actually like the way the AI responds now and how much tougher it is. If you go back and play the first Halo, it's palpable how formulaic the fighting is. I love the game, it's great fun, but it's not very difficult. As the games have progressed from Halo 2 to Reach now, I find it's becoming increasingly harder and the enemies have become more unpredictable - and I dig that.

Anywho, I finished the campaign and I thought it was great. The multiplayer is fun as well, although I'm totally getting my ass kicked. Not used to being owned so thoroughly in a Halo title but I'm still having fun. Only knock I'd have on the game is the multiplayer maps. Maybe it's just going to take me a while to acclimate and start liking them, but other than a couple I am not too impressed with them. Oh well, here's to another map pack coming out soon.

But the AI is simply following a trend that has been around for a decade. Its not any smarter, there are simply triggers that set off certain actions when the protagonist comes into play. Some trends i have seen in Reach, but which are apparant in any number of FPS's, is that scoping an enemy from distance will make them suddenly suspicious. They'll then start moving quickly about the map...making it almost pointless to have any distance weapons because they have a tendancy to clue into you long before they should.

And now all of the enemies are lethal shots. The Grunts are not supposed to be lethal balls of death, their name implies the bottom of the shit pile, and they are treated as such. It makes more sense for them to be weaker, but travel in larger packs. I would rather see thirty Grunts of approrpiate skill than four of these Hyper Grunts.

I guess my problem is not that the difficulty has inceased per say, only that they have changed the rules for the games that, in theory, follow it - at least time line wise. I mean the Elites have always been pretty bad ass, but now...they are a bit too lethal. They move too quickly, the can take too much punishment. In terms of the games in-game universe, i have trouble seeing anyone but a Spartan killing an Elite...and i mean ever. It should not take three or four rounds from a fifty cal. sniper rifle to take one of these fuckers out, nor should the plasma grenade not kill them instantly. As it stands, its not a desperate fight anymore between humanity and the Covenant - its a slaughter. Only the Spartans can do much of anything, and even then, there are simply not enough. While the end results, at least in terms of story, could unfold in Halo:CE as they did, the second and third game are now moot - there is simply no way any of the regular humans could hold out against such forces.

Save for perhaps Avery Johnson, but legends never die, they only grow bigger.

Meh, its a minor pet peeve.

[Tyrellius]

..plus this weekend this missus is gone so i'm going to spend the entirity of it going hard.

Quoted for truth. :rofl:

[Poobah]

Okay, see, the first quote is your opinion. That's fine. The second one is you arguing that multiplayer is put in because it is "cheap" and not that difficult to make. That's where you are dead wrong.

The emboldened words indicate that I'm stating a personal, subjective opinion. If I had removed "I just feel like" and "it seems like" then you would have a point.

Also, not that I want to divert a fun argument but Mass Effect 2 (insanity obviously) Vanguard : should I get the ability to use Assault Rifles or go for the Claymore Heavy Shotgun?

I kinda feel that even with the Claymore I probably won't be able to 1-shot stuff or 1 shot + 1 melee hit stuff on insanity anyway and then having to reload is going to ruin the damage rate of the weapon. I mean it seems like it'd be a great weapon on difficulties where charge + 1 shot to face will be a kill, but on insanity everyone has a hundred billion different types of armour and crap so the whole big damage but low rate of fire thing doesn't work so well.

-Poobs

[Jon AS]

Also, not that I want to divert a fun argument but Mass Effect 2 (insanity obviously) Vanguard : should I get the ability to use Assault Rifles or go for the Claymore Heavy Shotgun?

I kinda feel that even with the Claymore I probably won't be able to 1-shot stuff or 1 shot + 1 melee hit stuff on insanity anyway and then having to reload is going to ruin the damage rate of the weapon. I mean it seems like it'd be a great weapon on difficulties where charge + 1 shot to face will be a kill, but on insanity everyone has a hundred billion different types of armour and crap so the whole big damage but low rate of fire thing doesn't work so well.

The Claymore can indeed one-shot enemies even on insanity. Not anything with two different kinds of protection, obviously, but the average enemy won't survive it. If you can manage the "reload trick" (starting the reload animation then hitting melee at the right time will shave off some of the reload time) it gets even better, but the one-shot kill potential alone is enough to win me over. Plus it's an insanely powerful gun made for Krogan, of course you want one!

[Poobah]

The Claymore can indeed one-shot enemies even on insanity. Not anything with two different kinds of protection, obviously, but the average enemy won't survive it. If you can manage the "reload trick" (starting the reload animation then hitting melee at the right time will shave off some of the reload time) it gets even better, but the one-shot kill potential alone is enough to win me over. Plus it's an insanely powerful gun made for Krogan, of course you want one!

Shiny.

[Jacen]

Playing a few last games of Civ 4 with the Rise of Mankind mod, as a goodbye before Civ 5.

Also playing a bit of Mafia 2.

[Inigima]

Coco:

BTW, is there a replacement for the BR?

There's the DMR, which is similar -- has a scope, controlled firing. Single-shot semi-auto only though. It feels pretty good.

Poobah:

The emboldened words indicate that I'm stating a personal, subjective opinion. If I had removed "I just feel like" and "it seems like" then you would have a point.

This is a copout. Either way, that is objectively not the case, no matter what you "feel like."

[Poobah]

No, not at all. It'd be nice if one could put "I feel" in front of everything that they didn't want validated/refuted, but that's not the way the world works.

I didn't say that you weren't free to disagree with my opinion. But you indicated that I was making a far wider statement than I infact was. Adding "I feel" inherently weakens the any statement I make because it downgrades it to an opinion. If I were to have said "instead of building a really amazing single player game they have a token single player campaign to save money." that would have been a much stronger statement then "it seems that instead of building a really amazing single player game (and so many games including, say Halo 3, had great potential) they have a token single player campaign to save money." and the former is inherently more provocative than the other.

That said regardless of whether you are challenging an opinion or statement I make "that is just your opinion (paraphrase" is not a solid challenge in any way shape or form and nor is "you are dead wrong" which though you make it out to be a fact is implicitly your opinion unless you would care to back it up and so is just as fallible as mine.

Edit and oh my fucking God Ini :rofl: "objectively" really?

[Max the Mostly Mediocre]

That said regardless of whether you are challenging an opinion or statement I make "that is just your opinion (paraphrase" is not a solid challenge in any way shape or form and nor is "you are dead wrong" which though you make it out to be a fact is implicitly your opinion unless you would care to back it up and so is just as fallible as mine.

Let's start small. You talked about lazy devs. Which devs did you have in mind?

Oh, here's a guide for vanguard. It notes that the claymore may be less useful on insanity than other shotguns, as other shotguns allow you to constantly stagger your target. Also, if you have the firepower dlc apparently the geth shotty is better.

[Poobah]

Let's start small. You talked about lazy devs. Which devs did you have in mind?

Oh, here's a guide for vanguard. It notes that the claymore may be less useful on insanity than other shotguns, as other shotguns allow you to constantly stagger your target. Also, if you have the firepower dlc apparently the geth shotty is better.

Yea I'm not gonna pay for a shotgun, the weapons in that paid dlc pack seem pretty powerful but when I can buy a whole box of tea for less... My real quandry with this is that I feel that if I pick the assault rifle training I'll end up playing with the assault rifle too much and abandon my vanguardyness. This happened too much with my infiltrator; I picked ARs for him and I ended up doing less sniping and more playing with assault rifles. ARs just feel so well balanced for any situation that it's hard to not just play the soldiery AR way.

I could be wrong of course Max, but I feel that when, say Bioware to pick a developer who I am equally critical and supportive of, can produce ME2 which is equal parts RPG and really fun Third Person Shooter which has loads of content (I don't consider spending an hour being forced to mine minerals content, and for the sake of the discussion I will omit all the rpg-ish bits and focus on the action content) and then I look at the single player campaign of Halo 3... well I can call the latter to be 'token' in comparison. I agree with you (I said so upthread somewhere) that it is expensive to make great A+ single player campaigns. When I talk about laziness and tokenness I mean that developers chose not to make expensive single player campaigns to save time and money. This is a reasonable business strategy but I reserve the right to criticise the amount and quality of their single player content.

[Inigima]

Poobah, I think you're comparing apples and oranges. Mass Effect 2 has no multiplayer, whereas it's the focus of the Halo series, and whether you believe it or not, good multiplayer is very time-consuming and expensive to create. I don't think it's fair to slam Halo because its single-player isn't as long as a game that had all of its time focused on single-player content. The Halo campaign isn't that long because it's not where most Halo players will be spending most of their time.

As for the "why buy this game when it's just another shooter," I don't understand why you are only willing to take this brush to shooters. Mass Effect 2 has a lot in common with its predecessor, just like Halo. There's new content to explore, and mechanics have been added or refined... just like Halo. Why does one get a pass and the other doesn't?

I guess the improvements to Halo's multiplayer are harder to "see" since you can't point to a campaign that lasts x hours to measure it. But spend some time playing Halo, and then some time playing Halo: Reach, and you'll feel the difference.

Let me also say that I love the shit out of Mass Effect and its sequel. I'm not slamming the game. But I like Halo too, for different reasons, and just because Halo doesn't click as well as Mass Effect does for you doesn't make it bad or unworthy.

[Max the Mostly Mediocre]

Oh, man, you didn't take the widow with your infiltrator? You poor thing. It was awesome. You basically got to shout BOOM! HEADSHOT! all the time.

I'm with you on buying new guns, but hell, I didn't know your stance on DLC, so it was worth mentioning.

I could be wrong of course Max, but I feel that when, say Bioware to pick a developer who I am equally critical and supportive of, can produce ME2 which is equal parts RPG and really fun Third Person Shooter which has loads of content (I don't consider spending an hour being forced to mine minerals content, and for the sake of the discussion I will omit all the rpg-ish bits and focus on the action content) and then I look at the single player campaign of Halo 3... well I can call the latter to be 'token' in comparison. I agree with you (I said so upthread somewhere) that it is expensive to make great A+ single player campaigns. When I talk about laziness and tokenness I mean that developers chose not to make expensive single player campaigns to save time and money. This is a reasonable business strategy but I reserve the right to criticise the amount and quality of their single player content.

This is great, because ME2 is one of the games I was thinking of as an example of why games aren't as long anymore and expensive development and stuff. You know how they use the Blue Suns/Blood Pack/Eclipse plus Lokis, Fenris (fenrir?) and YMIRs for everything, meaning there actually aren't that many distinct enemies? You know how the levels are tiny, linear, and not actually well-designed (the combat areas scream "okay, cover here, be ready!")? You know how all the missions are maybe half an hour long? Yeah. What I'm getting at is if you ditch the movies, ME2 isn't actually very long. Ten hours of shooting gameplay, maybe a few more; half an hour or maybe forty minutes per squadmamte, twice, plus the opening, the colony, the ship, the station. I think I might be missing something? I mean, I completed it in twenty hours without skipping a damn thing (well, I did completely skip mining, yay trainers). Remove the dialogue and it's not much longer than a Halo game, especially accounting for the way those half-hour/forty minute missions do include dialogue. So whereas Halo has shootykill and multiplay, ME2 has shootykill and movies (apparently ME3 will have shootykill, movies, and multiplay. It'll be interesting to see how long it takes to make).

Anyway. What I've been getting at is the singpleplayer campaigns you're critical of? They are expensive. Which isn't to say you shouldn't complain about Kane & Lynch 2, or Modern Warfare, or Max Payne 2, or whatever being fucking short, but simply that you shouldn't attribute the shortness to laziness and greed. At least not on the part of the developer.

[Arthmail]

I'll add that while i love ME 1 and 2, there were few truly FUN moments. I mean, it was all fun, and some truly awesome bits, but i'm a FPS type of fellow. Its all bullets, all the time. Basically only Bioware can break me out of that mold.

But in Halo 3, when i was scooting around on an ATV with a marine behind me firing rockets at a giant Scarab (basically a giant spider that fires lightning from its mouth), and all around me are ten or so other ATVs all firing rockets, i was in fucking AWE. I laughed and giggled like a little girl. Because i enjoy those moments, and few FPS deliver them like Halo does. Gears did not, at any point. The closest i have had, at least of the games that i still play, is Left4Dead 1 and 2.

I want to feel my balls in my mouth as i jam in my last clip and make a dash for safety as the hordes of enemies (Aliens. Zombies. Nazi's. Or Alien Zombie Nazi's, which i have been eagerly waiting for), try and hunt my ass down and punk me.

[Poobah]

As for the "why buy this game when it's just another shooter," I don't understand why you are only willing to take this brush to shooters. Mass Effect 2 has a lot in common with its predecessor, just like Halo. There's new content to explore, and mechanics have been added or refined... just like Halo. Why does one get a pass and the other doesn't?

I guess the improvements to Halo's multiplayer are harder to "see" since you can't point to a campaign that lasts x hours to measure it. But spend some time playing Halo, and then some time playing Halo: Reach, and you'll feel the difference.

What I mean when I say "just another shooter" is when you talk about the multiplayer content being the focus of the game the actual fun comes from the players involved, and a lot of the content stuff is secondary to the people you play with. I certainly have WAY more fun in FPS games when I play with a load of friends than with random people. Had some great times on Halo 2 sitting around with some friends in front of a massive TV and doing deathmatches and stuff. Comparing Halo2 and Halo:Reach seems bad because from what you've said Reach has added some sort of class system and stuff. But if we compare the multiplayer of Halo 2 and Halo 3 they are pretty damn similar.

Oh, man, you didn't take the widow with your infiltrator? You poor thing. It was awesome. You basically got to shout BOOM! HEADSHOT! all the time.

I'm with you on buying new guns, but hell, I didn't know your stance on DLC, so it was worth mentioning.

Now you make me want to remake my infiltrator and get the widow.

Almost universally I think paid DLC is not worth the money. And in a few cases it feels like things are deliberately left out of games in order that they can be sold later. With ME2 I think most of the resources for Kusami are already in the game so that's a bit wtf.

Also I loved Max Payne 2. I know it isn't long but it's good, and it has a hell of a lot of atmosphere. I'm a real fan of oldschool noir though so both Max Payne games got extra points for that from me; I actually replayed Max Payne 2 on Hardboiled recently and had a blast. One day I want to finish it on Dead on Arrival but I get owned a lot. But yea, games get a lot of slack from me if they feel good. Max Payne 2 has all this noir stuff going on, great dark humour, good storytelling and pretty challenging gameplay. With all that taken in I don't think I'd be nearly as justified in criticising the developers for its length.

Yea I know the level design of ME2 isn't always inspired, though some of the levels are pretty long. Halo's level design is certainly better in some parts, though there are some similarly linear levels in the Halo games too. And yea the chest high walls always annoy me, often they are really un-subtle. I think ME2 has slightly more content than you give it credit for in the shootykill department though. I think there are around 20 side-missions (actual shootykill ones, not "oh you found this item in a plot mission, bring it to someone for some bonus exp and stuff" ones) including a few 2-4 mission chains you can pick up. Most of them are started via finding anomalies while scanning though. Now when I replay I just look up where they are located though, I don't search for them :P Some are only 5-10 mins, but some are longish too.

I certainly know what you mean about there only being a very limited enemy selection. But even in games with massive amounts of different enemies, they mostly all actually behave identically in terms of AI and are just humans with different skins. Fantasy games have a much better time when it comes to having loads of different types of enemies. I think ME2 is ok in terms of enemy variety though, there are hm, three different types of mechs, four or five types of Geth, the few Blood Pack guys, the few Eclipse types, the few Blue Suns types, the husks, scions and the other big husky thing, several types of collector, there are a few types of animals and a few other misc things like the automated defence turrets and crap, probably some stuff I forgot too.

IDK It's definitely subjective. Halo 3's singleplayer for me felt like it could have been much better if it were longer and more filled out. Max Payne's single player felt pretty much like it was the right length. ME2's single player feels pretty long and chunky to me, though I would criticise it for being a bit repetitious.

Art: I have OMFG moments in ME2 all the time with my Vanguard. I'm probably a really impetuous super sloppy, super reckless player when it comes to vanguarding lol, but I spend like 90% of my time with major health damage, charging around thinking oh fuck where is the cover one more shot and I'm dead omg thank fuck charge came off cooldown... shit charged into more trouble arhhh... good times.

[Inigima]

I tend to agree with you about the jump from Halo 2 to Halo 3, although I suspect there are under-the-hood changes I don't know about. As I said earlier, I disliked both games and didn't play them very much.