And had they upscaled it and then dropped the frame rate to 30 FPS like, oh say, Madden on the PS3, you'd be reaming them out for that too!
What really matters is the quality of character and environment designs? Really? I guess you don't own a next generation system then; there's really no point to, ever, when there are so many good (and better) games out there for older systems. But I guess everyone who owns a PS3 or a X360 is just a graphics fanboy.
And you know, you're right about that. Because of your comments I'm going to head over to GameStop after work and trade in my 360 and use the money to get the original XBox versions of Assassin's Creed, Mass Effect, Blue Dragon, Bioshock, Halo 3...oh, wait. Those games don't exist, do they? Guess I'll be keeping my 360 then.
One also needs a really expensive TV, otherwise you're never really seeing it. Considering how few people actually own a 1080p TV, I'm betting that it's wasted on most of the PS3 owners.
Well, considering that I logged over 400 games on Halo 2, and expect to do something similar on Halo 3, I think that beats your "1 hour per $" complaint.
Slayer has a 10 minute time limit, some of the BTB objective games were a little longer though. Assuming an average of something on the order of 7 minutes a game that gives you a grand total of 2,800 minutes, or about 47 hours. Now, that's being conservative of course...you figure in pre and post game chat, long objective matches, etc, and it gets longer. Add in the campaign and the fact that I played through it a couple of times and you have well over 65 or 70 hours logged on Halo 2.
If Halo 3 is at all similar in terms of fun then I'll be logging the same amount of time in matchmaking, if not more. Once you add in saved films, the forge and the meta-game then it looks like I'll probably be hitting 80-90 hours easily.
No dude... A CD is a product that you're buying. Now, if they only way you could buy a CD is when it was bundled with Kelly Clarkson's greatest hits (which you also had to pay for) that would be more like what's going on here.
As I said though, I'm not arguing that it would be better with a D-Pad or analog sticks...just that the option should have been there.
Your DDR and Guitar Hero examples just prove the point. What if you don't have a DDR pad, or it broke? What if you did a Hendrix number on your Guitar Hero controller, or just couldn't afford one? You have the option to use the game pad on those games...it may suck, but at least you were given the option.
Wow...that must suck at work. Always touching your monitor, never getting the cursor to move. Oh, and ATMs...how do you get money out? Ahem, have you ever heard of a mouse, that is basically the equivalent to touching something directly. When whas the last time you used the keyboard for your graphical user interface without any mouse interaction.
ATM's have a mouse now?
But seriously, a mouse is another device with buttons that you press, instead of pressing the screen directly. It's no different than using the analog sticks to move a cursor. Even still though, the point is that there is a keyboard and you will be using it. You don't have to be "geek" in order to know that.
Rather than requoting everything again, I'll just respond point by point.
1) So now the enemy only throws grenades when he's out of bullets? You're missing the point. You gave a very simplistic "If he's within range, throw grenade" explanation. If you use something that simplistic it's predictable and exploitable. More complex scripting is better AI...this is the easy shortcuts you outlined originally aren't groundbreaking.
2) Again, simplistic AI. Move one player into range that can handle the grenades and the AI will switch to lobbing grenades at him while his allies shred him. To be realistic the AI would need to assess the situation and prioritize targets as well as which weapons to use on those targets.
3) So flanking, pincer attacks, getting the high ground, strategic smoke concealment, etc.. are governed under your "Charge or Cover" mechanic? Again, now you're talking orders of complexity higher to achieve anything other than a "wait for player" or "move along quickest route to player" routine.
4) So a scenario should never even be considered because it means the player is already outclassed? That's ridiculous! What if it's 4 on 20? You're outnumbered and the bad guy pin you down with covering fire while they evacuate a VIP. As they pull out of the room they toss some grenades behind them to keep you in cover and delay your advancement. This is exactly the sort of real world tactics missing from games today. With your version they would either run at you and shoot, throw grenades in a confined space or take cover and wait for you. 3 options.
5) The designer should be able to do whatever the hell he wants. What if you have a compound filled with armed guards, who have grenades. You sneak into and get close to your objective, a large reactor, without being spotted. You get spotted though and guards are quickly called from surrounding areas (rather than magically appearing). Should they just start lobbing grenades next to a reactor? Probably not. Again, it's not weakness on the developers part, it's realism. What are they going to do, drop the grenades before they come in? Or maybe in your game non-grenade carrying enemies will just magically appear...
6) Okay, so if there's ever a tank, the designer's an idiot... I guess that rules out a LOT of WWII scenarios then! Oh, and nice job of completely glossing over the need to prioritize weapons!!!
7) Fine, you have a sum-machine gun and he had an M60. You don't need to "adjust" much on an M60 in order to fire it effectively, and it's clearly superior to an SMG in terms of shots down range, but not in accurracy. Some situations it would be good, others it wouldn't.
8-10) For you last couple of points, let me illustrate it like this. You have three people standing in a line, when a whistle blows they either jump up or crouch. That's multiple different combinations, but of the same behavior. They don't automatically start flanking and using squad tactics because they can randomly jump up or crouch, they just randomly pick between some pre-scripted events. The overall effect though is that some guys are jumping and some are crouching...big whoop.
Yes, so much better to have a scantily clad woman with long flowing hair and (un)realistic "upper body physics" that just so happens to be able to flip over tanks and absorb a grenade or rocket at almost point blank range. In other words...Samus without the (all metal covering her entire body BTW) armor.
Of course, if Master Chief looked like that I'm sure you'd be here complaining about how "it's totally unrealistic".
If yes then when enemy is in throw range throw grenades until grenades == 0 or enemy == 0.
You can counteract this then by hopping in and out of throw range until the enemy runs out of grenades. Also, what if there are multiple players, some in range of the grenades and some outside grenade range but within weapons range. Plus, what about novel tactics? Retreating out of a room and tossing a grenade behind you? Effective use of smoke grenades instead of just frags?
If you've gotten to the point where you have to ask that, you've already too far. Ask yourself why you as the designer are giving grenades to the guards inside the art museum.
So then a player can simply negate grenade wielding enemies by retreating into the art museum? Or will the enemy pursue but fail to use grenades even if all available weapons are out of ammo?
Why would he need to decide that? He'd use his weapon until it was empty or the enemy were all killed. Then the decision comes in to look for other weapons or to play dead.
You ever play a multiplayer game? Your buddy next to you with the Rocket Launcher dies, you have an SMG and you're fighting a Tank. Do you honestly just sit there and plug away with the SMG while you're standing next to a Rocket Launcher? Of course not! Conversely, what if he had a Sniper rifle? It's normally a superior weapon, but is it still superior in that particular situation?
Nope and that's the point. The tactics the PLAYERS will use will have to CHANGE each time they play because the tactics the enemy will use will have changed.
But they're really not. If the enemy picks one of two options regardless of what you do, you only need to learn a counter for each of the two options. Now, if you're crouched in cover with a Shotgun, you have the charge covered, so you only have to worry about when they take cover as well.
But imagine instead that the enemy starts tossing grenades in an attempt to dislodge you from your cover. Or one enemy pins you down with automatic weapons fire while his allies flank you from the sides, staying well out of range of your shotgun. Or what if they toss out some smoke, then move up while you can't see them? Or better yet, you're in a warhouse and one of them goes up onto the catwalks to get above and behind you in order to flush you out into the waiting sights of his buddies?
These sorts of things are what a player would think of, but current AI won't...and the AI you described certainly won't. Adding a couple of simplistic scripts with a random choice between them does not an AI make. Creating enemies with their own personalities, preferences and play styles that react to what tactics the player is using in a realistic and inventive fashion is the future of AI. It's also what human players do, why do you think multiplayer deathmatches have been (and continue to be) so popular?
Wow...that must suck at work. Always touching your monitor, never getting the cursor to move. Oh, and ATMs...how do you get money out?
I'm sorry, but everyone who has spend more than 5 minutes with an electronic device in their lives tends to look for a button to control a device. I don't know though, maybe you're the exception...maybe you're the guy pawing at his car window because he's trying to drag it down rather than hitting the "button".
He's not saying that the D-Pad or analog sticks are just purely better, he's asking "were you ever thrilled to not have a choice."
The problem though wasn't so much that the controls sucked per se, after all there might be some extremely masochistic people out there that actually like Lair's controls, it's that if you didn't like them you couldn't switch to something that you were more comfortable with. There's simply no excuse for that.
How many fighting games give you the option of D-Pad or analog sticks? How many games give you option of standard or inverted controls? How many games give you multiple controller configurations to choose from or allow button mapping? Choice is what allows a player to pick the option that's best for them...and isn't that what games are supposed to be about? Choice?
Blue Dragon's designers include Hironobu Sakaguchi, Akira Toriyama, and Nobuo Uematsu, respectively producer and scenario writer, character designer, and composer. The game's original story was created by Hironobu Sakaguchi, the game director of the first five Final Fantasy video games. The game features art from Akira Toriyama, the creator of Dragon Ball and visual, character and monster designer and illustrator of Dragon Quest.
Blue Dragon's soundtrack is produced and composed by Nobuo Uematsu, a composer responsible for much of the music in the popular Final Fantasy game series. The music was performed live at the PLAY! A Video Game Symphony concerts in 2006. One of the boss themes, Eternity, was written by Sakaguchi, composed by Uematsu, and includes vocals by English singer Ian Gillan.
Except for the English singer, those names don't sound very "American" do they? Oh, and they happen to include people that worked on things like the Final Fantasy series, Chrono Trigger, Dragon Quest and Vagrant Story. Maybe you should actually take the time to read about things before you wind up choking on that foot in your mouth.
That's actually a very interesting question. Subbed is usually far superior, but I don't mind dubbed...however, that seems to be all they show on cable.
Now, if the 360 started offering subbed versions of the same show at a competitive price, then I would definitely be interested.
Yeah cuz, you know, it toally makes sense for you to factor in the cost of a wireless headset when the 360 already comes packaged with a wired one. It also totally makes sense to completely discount the wireless headset from your phone as a "cost". I have no bluetooth headset for my phone, so I guess that means that PS3 will magically cost more for me then according to your logic.
Just as a counterpoint though, let me run down what it took to get my 360 "playable".
But why all of the Halo 3 hate? I understand that there are those out there who play nothing but Madden and Halo, but there are also those of us who play games like Blue Dragon, Bioshock, Project Sylpheed and will be playing the hell out of Mass Effect.
Just because we also happen to love the Halo series isn't a bad thing. A group of my friends and I still get together for Halo:CE LAN parties even, and they're definitely not "Madden Gamers"...although a few of them do happen to play that franchise too.;)
Yeah, they also claimed that the Rubmle technology and the motion-sensing technology couldn't both fit into the controller. It's too bad they don't have Pinnocio working for them, with all the lying they're doing his nose could've supplied enough wood to rebuild the entire city of New Orleans!
Considering that the first KOTOR came out in July of '03 and Jade Empire came out in April of '05 (and now Mass Effect is coming out in Novemeber of '07) I would tend to agree with the above poster. If they stay within the current gen console they don't have to worry much about meeting new specs or anything, and can use essentialy the same engine with each release (with modifications as the system gets older and they learn how to tweak it more). That means it should be completely feasible for them to release a new Mass Effect every other year, with perhaps some episodic content in between major retail releases.
Also, considering their past success with KOTOR and Jade Empire, they would have to make a real stinker in order to screw up enough to negate the possibility of a sequel or two. Mass Effect is slated to be everything those two games were and more, and from everything I've seen in the previews it has nowhere near the issues that Advent Rising had.
Delayed yes, but they were actually released. I think the OP was more referring to the fact that Too Human has been repeatedly delayed while new games were being announced and subsequently released.
Even if you could take him to the Moon to see for himself, that can still be explained away.
[paranoid rant]Well, that's simple really. Obviously if you can bring me to the Moon now the government would've had ample time to plant a fake lander that's supposedly from the 60's. This could've been planted here last week for all I know...[/paranoid rant]
Our ratings sucked and we didn't make any money. gg.
Re:Can't Start My Car After Mouthwash
on
BioShock Review
·
· Score: 1
Why? The "pirates" aren't the ones making the pointless DRM restrictions. The people who crack games free us from them. I don't blame anyone for DRM except the people making the DRM.
*sigh*
Okay, it's like this. A long time ago there was no DRM or copy protection, and people bought games. Then some people said "Bah, why pay for it when I can have it for free?" and they began pirating.
To combat this, the video games started using DRM and copy protection. Then the pirates would crack it and steal more games, so they made it better...but then it would get cracked again, so they made it better...etc.
See a pattern here? The reason DRM and copy protection was created was to try and stop the pirates. So how is that the industry's fault? Is it the police's fault that they have to do sobriety stops on holidays, or is the fault of the people who get plastered and end up killing a family of 6 coming home from Grandma's house in their minivan?
Slashdot Mirror
And you know, you're right about that. Because of your comments I'm going to head over to GameStop after work and trade in my 360 and use the money to get the original XBox versions of Assassin's Creed, Mass Effect, Blue Dragon, Bioshock, Halo 3...oh, wait. Those games don't exist, do they? Guess I'll be keeping my 360 then.
One also needs a really expensive TV, otherwise you're never really seeing it. Considering how few people actually own a 1080p TV, I'm betting that it's wasted on most of the PS3 owners.
Slayer has a 10 minute time limit, some of the BTB objective games were a little longer though. Assuming an average of something on the order of 7 minutes a game that gives you a grand total of 2,800 minutes, or about 47 hours. Now, that's being conservative of course...you figure in pre and post game chat, long objective matches, etc, and it gets longer. Add in the campaign and the fact that I played through it a couple of times and you have well over 65 or 70 hours logged on Halo 2.
If Halo 3 is at all similar in terms of fun then I'll be logging the same amount of time in matchmaking, if not more. Once you add in saved films, the forge and the meta-game then it looks like I'll probably be hitting 80-90 hours easily.
Actually, that would be a bad idea. That could lead to...uncomfortable conversations.
Not to mention they're making a lot of exclusive deals on special pre-order bonuses. Like the Bioshock LE.
My name is Scott Charney, you laugh at my company, prepare to die.
No dude... A CD is a product that you're buying. Now, if they only way you could buy a CD is when it was bundled with Kelly Clarkson's greatest hits (which you also had to pay for) that would be more like what's going on here.
Your DDR and Guitar Hero examples just prove the point. What if you don't have a DDR pad, or it broke? What if you did a Hendrix number on your Guitar Hero controller, or just couldn't afford one? You have the option to use the game pad on those games...it may suck, but at least you were given the option.
ATM's have a mouse now?
But seriously, a mouse is another device with buttons that you press, instead of pressing the screen directly. It's no different than using the analog sticks to move a cursor. Even still though, the point is that there is a keyboard and you will be using it. You don't have to be "geek" in order to know that.
1) So now the enemy only throws grenades when he's out of bullets? You're missing the point. You gave a very simplistic "If he's within range, throw grenade" explanation. If you use something that simplistic it's predictable and exploitable. More complex scripting is better AI...this is the easy shortcuts you outlined originally aren't groundbreaking.
2) Again, simplistic AI. Move one player into range that can handle the grenades and the AI will switch to lobbing grenades at him while his allies shred him. To be realistic the AI would need to assess the situation and prioritize targets as well as which weapons to use on those targets.
3) So flanking, pincer attacks, getting the high ground, strategic smoke concealment, etc.. are governed under your "Charge or Cover" mechanic? Again, now you're talking orders of complexity higher to achieve anything other than a "wait for player" or "move along quickest route to player" routine.
4) So a scenario should never even be considered because it means the player is already outclassed? That's ridiculous! What if it's 4 on 20? You're outnumbered and the bad guy pin you down with covering fire while they evacuate a VIP. As they pull out of the room they toss some grenades behind them to keep you in cover and delay your advancement. This is exactly the sort of real world tactics missing from games today. With your version they would either run at you and shoot, throw grenades in a confined space or take cover and wait for you. 3 options.
5) The designer should be able to do whatever the hell he wants. What if you have a compound filled with armed guards, who have grenades. You sneak into and get close to your objective, a large reactor, without being spotted. You get spotted though and guards are quickly called from surrounding areas (rather than magically appearing). Should they just start lobbing grenades next to a reactor? Probably not. Again, it's not weakness on the developers part, it's realism. What are they going to do, drop the grenades before they come in? Or maybe in your game non-grenade carrying enemies will just magically appear...
6) Okay, so if there's ever a tank, the designer's an idiot... I guess that rules out a LOT of WWII scenarios then! Oh, and nice job of completely glossing over the need to prioritize weapons!!!
7) Fine, you have a sum-machine gun and he had an M60. You don't need to "adjust" much on an M60 in order to fire it effectively, and it's clearly superior to an SMG in terms of shots down range, but not in accurracy. Some situations it would be good, others it wouldn't.
8-10) For you last couple of points, let me illustrate it like this. You have three people standing in a line, when a whistle blows they either jump up or crouch. That's multiple different combinations, but of the same behavior. They don't automatically start flanking and using squad tactics because they can randomly jump up or crouch, they just randomly pick between some pre-scripted events. The overall effect though is that some guys are jumping and some are crouching...big whoop.
Of course, if Master Chief looked like that I'm sure you'd be here complaining about how "it's totally unrealistic".
You can counteract this then by hopping in and out of throw range until the enemy runs out of grenades. Also, what if there are multiple players, some in range of the grenades and some outside grenade range but within weapons range. Plus, what about novel tactics? Retreating out of a room and tossing a grenade behind you? Effective use of smoke grenades instead of just frags?
So then a player can simply negate grenade wielding enemies by retreating into the art museum? Or will the enemy pursue but fail to use grenades even if all available weapons are out of ammo?
You ever play a multiplayer game? Your buddy next to you with the Rocket Launcher dies, you have an SMG and you're fighting a Tank. Do you honestly just sit there and plug away with the SMG while you're standing next to a Rocket Launcher? Of course not! Conversely, what if he had a Sniper rifle? It's normally a superior weapon, but is it still superior in that particular situation?
But they're really not. If the enemy picks one of two options regardless of what you do, you only need to learn a counter for each of the two options. Now, if you're crouched in cover with a Shotgun, you have the charge covered, so you only have to worry about when they take cover as well.
But imagine instead that the enemy starts tossing grenades in an attempt to dislodge you from your cover. Or one enemy pins you down with automatic weapons fire while his allies flank you from the sides, staying well out of range of your shotgun. Or what if they toss out some smoke, then move up while you can't see them? Or better yet, you're in a warhouse and one of them goes up onto the catwalks to get above and behind you in order to flush you out into the waiting sights of his buddies?
These sorts of things are what a player would think of, but current AI won't...and the AI you described certainly won't. Adding a couple of simplistic scripts with a random choice between them does not an AI make. Creating enemies with their own personalities, preferences and play styles that react to what tactics the player is using in a realistic and inventive fashion is the future of AI. It's also what human players do, why do you think multiplayer deathmatches have been (and continue to be) so popular?
I'm sorry, but everyone who has spend more than 5 minutes with an electronic device in their lives tends to look for a button to control a device. I don't know though, maybe you're the exception...maybe you're the guy pawing at his car window because he's trying to drag it down rather than hitting the "button".
The problem though wasn't so much that the controls sucked per se, after all there might be some extremely masochistic people out there that actually like Lair's controls, it's that if you didn't like them you couldn't switch to something that you were more comfortable with. There's simply no excuse for that.
How many fighting games give you the option of D-Pad or analog sticks? How many games give you option of standard or inverted controls? How many games give you multiple controller configurations to choose from or allow button mapping? Choice is what allows a player to pick the option that's best for them...and isn't that what games are supposed to be about? Choice?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Dragon/
Except for the English singer, those names don't sound very "American" do they? Oh, and they happen to include people that worked on things like the Final Fantasy series, Chrono Trigger, Dragon Quest and Vagrant Story. Maybe you should actually take the time to read about things before you wind up choking on that foot in your mouth.
Now, if the 360 started offering subbed versions of the same show at a competitive price, then I would definitely be interested.
Just as a counterpoint though, let me run down what it took to get my 360 "playable".
$400.
Just because we also happen to love the Halo series isn't a bad thing. A group of my friends and I still get together for Halo:CE LAN parties even, and they're definitely not "Madden Gamers"...although a few of them do happen to play that franchise too. ;)
Blue Dragon is an FPS??? Oh wait...I forgot, it's a hotly anticipated and highly rated RPG. Better luck next time. ;)
Yeah, they also claimed that the Rubmle technology and the motion-sensing technology couldn't both fit into the controller. It's too bad they don't have Pinnocio working for them, with all the lying they're doing his nose could've supplied enough wood to rebuild the entire city of New Orleans!
Also, considering their past success with KOTOR and Jade Empire, they would have to make a real stinker in order to screw up enough to negate the possibility of a sequel or two. Mass Effect is slated to be everything those two games were and more, and from everything I've seen in the previews it has nowhere near the issues that Advent Rising had.
Delayed yes, but they were actually released. I think the OP was more referring to the fact that Too Human has been repeatedly delayed while new games were being announced and subsequently released.
[paranoid rant]Well, that's simple really. Obviously if you can bring me to the Moon now the government would've had ample time to plant a fake lander that's supposedly from the 60's. This could've been planted here last week for all I know...[/paranoid rant]
Our ratings sucked and we didn't make any money. gg.
*sigh*
Okay, it's like this. A long time ago there was no DRM or copy protection, and people bought games. Then some people said "Bah, why pay for it when I can have it for free?" and they began pirating.
To combat this, the video games started using DRM and copy protection. Then the pirates would crack it and steal more games, so they made it better...but then it would get cracked again, so they made it better...etc.
See a pattern here? The reason DRM and copy protection was created was to try and stop the pirates. So how is that the industry's fault? Is it the police's fault that they have to do sobriety stops on holidays, or is the fault of the people who get plastered and end up killing a family of 6 coming home from Grandma's house in their minivan?