It would be less funny if you knew that shooting a guard once in the face elicits a confused cry, the second time prompts a stern warning, and only on the third time do they attempt to set you on fire.
Throwing large steel drums at a guard only results in a stern talking to, no matter how many times you do it.
In the world of Deus Ex, those are the two chief concerns - a totally nonsensical damage model and an absolutely abysmal AI (it's worse than the first one).
There are no silent stabs in the back, no sharp-shooting headshots. But it doesn't matter, because the AI doesn't quite achieve the competancy of a brain-damaged dog.
Crafting is prevalent, but it takes a fair amount of money to get started.
There are basically 9 crafting schools: Alchemist, Blacksmith, Bone Worker, Carpenter, Culinarian, Fisher, Goldsmith, Tanner, and Weaver. However, they're also co-dependant, so most crafters belong to at least two schools of crafting. There's no limit on how many you can join.
The actual act of crafting requires a crystal, which is sort of the catalyst for the process. Crafting recipies all require at least one crystal. Crystals can be bought at the Auction House, or gathered by killing mobs with a special spell called "Signet" cast on you - this spell is cast by NPC guards that are widely available.
If your GF doesn't mind the somewhat repetitive process that is crafting in MMOGs, it promises to be quite rewarding in FFXI.
I thank God you're not in charge of the gaming industry. As other people have pointed out, game mechanics just serve as the interface to the "real meat" of RPGs - the plot, the story, the characters.
Interestingly enough, the games you point out as "using the good aspects of rpgs" don't allow you to have any real impact in the game. Character customization in GTA:VC is superficial at best - I'm sorry, but choice of outfit and weapon does not an RPG make.
KotOR is the best RPG (I would say best game, period) experience on the Xbox. It's partially because of the game mechanics - but mostly because of the story. Its plot is epic and grand, and your character choices matter in a number of very real ways.
For the most part, games like BG:DA and D&D:H "fail" as RPGs because of their lack of meaningful characters and an engaging story. Those action RPGs are, at their worst, repetitive experiences in button-mashing. I'm not saying they can't be fun - I own both games, and found them remarkable the first time around - but they're RPGs in name only.
Having developers "throw out preconceived notions of what RPGs -are-" isn't necessarily a good idea - there are a number of extraordinarily good RPGs that have gotten the two essential aspects right. It's very important to learn from what worked and what didn't - to learn from the mistakes of others - and avoid repeating those pitfalls.
Finally, I'd like to point out where you're simply wrong. NWN alone disproves your concept that "GM-hand-tuned gameplay of pen and paper -dont- work in single-player focused CRPGs." There are a staggeringly large number of single-player focused modules for NWN, all hand-crafted by players/mod makers, that show off the usefulness of having a basic interface through which to tell a story.
The majority of your complaints are with how the games go about telling the story - the game mechanics. Not everyone will agree on one way that is "right" - I personally like being able to choose certain things about my character beforehand. More oft than not, I've found that it's not the game that has offered a bad character choice, but the player who has chosen one not in his style of play. I also don't mind reloading if I get caught in a bad situation. YMMV, but I certainly don't agree with your assessment of what is "wrong" with the RPG community.
I'm certainly not. What constitutes sharing? Playing it for myself alone, but loud enough for the neighbors to hear? Playing it in the car when my friends are listening? Playing it for a room full of people? Playing it for an auditorium full of people?
Is it my fault if some guy is making a recording without my knowledge?
What if my computer gets hacked, and my legitimate digital backups are compromised? What if my backup CDs are stolen, but not my original copies? What if I still have the backups if the originals are stolen?
Can I buy "used" CDs? What about purchasing a "mix" CD? A recording of a concert? Can I sell my "used" CDs? The copies if I destroy the originals? The digital copies if I destroy the originals?
>...and certainly games like Tie Fighter didn't... Well, that's not really accurate. The Defender of the Empire expansion for TIE Fighter allowed you to become part of a secret club, advancing along in the ranks until you became "The Emperor's Hand". The advancement featured a little cut scene were someone (presumably Palpatine) shot your arm with Force-lighting, giving you a purple tatoo indicating your rank within the club.
And, arguably, the only pilots to survive THAT many runs in a shieldless snubfighter MUST be force-sensitive.
Heh, I've had pretty much the same opinion of sports games until a couple weeks ago. I hadn't touched a Madden football game since 1994 or before, and something possessed a buddy and I to pick up the latest for Xbox. We actually had a bast, but it got returned 7 days later just like every other Xbox title I've rented.
I'm not really sure how to address "lack of innovation". Since I'm not of the opinion that it's impossible to make innovations in an already established genre, I don't know how to convince you otherwise.
The category of "shooter" is just so broad that I'm tempted to say we should have a "game where you click a mouse button" category. What constitutes a shooter? Doom? Half-life? Any game in a first-person mode? What about Thief, Deus Ex, or Savage? What about Max Payne? Does the introduction of new ideas, like Bullet Time in MP, constitute innovation?
What about combining genres, regardless of the way it was implemented? Deus Ex added a pretty standard RPG formula on top of a great FPS plot, and I think it made for a unique and incredible game experience. GTA3 falls into the same category - there's nothing really *new* about it. It was an outstanding game, certainly, but it combined the influences of Carmageddon, third-person shooters, Leisure Suit Larry, and crime dramas into one package.
And, in truth, the same exact thing applies to consoles. There's nothing new that they do - it seems like the majority of console titles are just the next game in a franchise. Link, Mario, Virtua Fighter, Castlevania, Jak, the multitude of sports games....
Unfortunately, a "good game" falls into a very, very specific category from person to person. I'm currently having a lot of fun with FFXI, and am really looking forward to Deus Ex 2. I'm very likely to go back and play GTA:VC for a third time. But some of the games that people say are groundbreaking - like Halo - just don't interest me.
"If it's not a POV shooter, or an RPG, or a RTS, it's not shipping for PC (to a good approximation)."
Hogwash. #1, you forgot Turn-based strategy games - like AoW:SM, or GalCiv. #2, you forgot Sports games - like Madden NFL 2004 and Tiger Woods PGA Tour 2004. Try GameRankings.com to see what you're missing.
Not to mention all the obscenely obvious stuff - player created mods, faster deployment of additional content, and an incredibly expansive lineup of online multiplayer games. Consoles are still in their online infancy.
You don't like PC games - that's fine. You're of the opinion that they're stagnating - that's fine, too. It doesn't change the fact that many games come out for multiple platforms, and most of the best wind up making the jump at some point - like GTA to PC, and finally to XBox... or SoF2, or R6... I can keep going on.
Simple fact: there are people who don't like playing games six to ten feet away from a grainy television screen displaying low resolution images on an extremely limited controller.
I like to look at MMOGs like they are - or should be - living worlds. Instead of PCs "gathering wood while offline", I prefer the notion of NPC hirelings to do "boring, tedious" stuff.
In my opinion, there are basically two ways to do things in life - learn how to do it yourself, or pay someone else to do it. Being taught how to do something falls into the "pay someone" category, imho, and basically should jump you past the "boring, tedious" step of tradeskills. Ideally, the "masterwork" sections should focus on how you create whatever object you're interested in making - like trying out new things in the quest to make cheaper or more superior products.
Merchants aren't made overnight, and I think this system does a good job of reflecting that.
"So you're berating someone who actually happened to have read the original post because you didn't have the minimal ability to understand it, even when it was pointed out to you directly?" This from a guy who failed to read the post to which he responds?
Me: "By definition, there is *NO* PvP that can exist without consequence." You: "You didn't read his post."
The original poster's desire to engage in antisocial activities without consequence cannot be fulfilled against another person. The consequence of his antisocial action is that the other person's player is in some way effected - injured, maimed, killed, destroyed, whatever.
His desire to act without consequence limits him to games where players cannot effect each other. I suggest Doom on God Mode, though there are a few places where you can still be effected. Though, arguably, *all* actions have some consequence.
The quote of mine - "There just needs to be a real consequence to these actions." - is directly in reference to a system that would allow antisocial MMOG players to engage in whatever activities they like, while giving those that have no desire to even allow themselves to be threatened the protection they desire. Again, try reading the post.
Next time you pull up to berate someone who actually has something intelligent to say, try smashing youself in the head with frozen meat. It certainly can't reduce the quality of your posts, and it might even stop you from posting such drivel.
"He isn't saying we should have Restricted PvP. He wants PvP on EVERYONE in the game." PvP on EVERYONE exists, it's called Shadowbane, or friendly-fire FPSers.
By definition, there is *NO* PvP that can exist without consequence. Either on the level of "one side gets killed", or "someone is hurt", or "first blood has been drawn".
And note that I didn't say anything about restricting PvP from anyone - only that there are game mechanics that can work in the favor of both PvP+ and PvP- people. Hell, EQ had a faction system.
If there are going to be NPC towns, I favor an "outcasting" system - where the players who don't wish to obey society's laws are no long allowed to participate in society. Throw characters in jail if they can be caught, or cut 'em down, or whatever.
There just needs to be a real consequence to these actions. The threat of "getting killed" means nothing when the character respawns right away.
Rerestricted PvP doesn't have to exclude everyone from the game. There are plenty of game mechanics available to discourage wanton chaos while allowing players the freedom to make their own choices on whether or not to follow the law.
The put-down isn't needed, either - plenty of adults play competitve games, or do the World Series not count?
The X-Wing series are some of my most favorite games of all time. It's a continual dissapointment to see the space sim genre shafted year after year. There was a petition going for TIE Fighter 2, but that stuff never works.
It's too bad. I never get the same feel in the RS games that I did in XW/TF/XvT/XW:A...
"I personally hate online multiplayer gaming in just about every form..." That's okay - you don't need to enjoy it. Just don't try to stop those of us who do.
"...I object to the idea of continuing to pay for a game I've already bought." There are no games that require you to pay for them after you've purchased them - period. The only types of games that have a service charge are MMOGs, and that service charge is the cost of server upkeep, bandwidth, and all the other services that you're taking a part of by playing their game.
It's not like buying fuel for your car; it's like paying for telephone service, or electricity, or water, or trash pickup, or cable tv - you're purchasing a portion of someone else's time, usually in the form of upkeep for something you're using.
Those games that don't provide additional services don't have the additional cost associated with them. Saying that since some games don't require subscriptions, none should, is like saying you shouldn't have to continue to pay for trash service, or that curbside pick-up should come free with the purchase of a trash can.
The best part about it is that you don't have to buy the game, or pay for the service, if you don't want to. But again, don't belittle the people who enjoy renting time on persistant/dedicated servers.
No worries, it's not exactly common knowledge - I've just been a fan of all the alien/colonial marine/predator franchises since... well, right around 1989. I was fairly comic-obsessed, especially with the quasi-dark stuff... it's harder when it's your own money (hah), but AvP/2 are a couple of my favorite concepts/games.
I totally disagree, but I'm a HUGE fan of the AvP PC games. I didn't encounter any of the bugs from the first AvP, and the "sadistic" save game limitation was to provide for a serious sense of atmosphere - being able to save whenever you want, as many times as you want, takes away any sense of danger (and in my opinion, accomplishment).
I even played the first one through on Director's Cut, without the ability to save at all during a level. That was *awesome*.
Some of my favorite Multiplayer moments involve either AvP or AvP2. A buddy and I used to hop into an AvP2 game in the evening, and suddenly find ourselves staring dawn in the face...
Sure, in a one-on-one fight, a Predator can probably beat an Alien.
But how about one-on-many? One of the Alien's strengths being numbers, and all...
If you'll forgive me some AvP-related fanism, the Predators have to main species they hunt - "softskins" (humans) and "hardskins" (aliens). A Predator becomes blooded by going on a "hardskin" hunting expedition, and is (generally) branded with the mark of its (his/her) mentor.
Seeing as the Pred in Pred2 only had one Alien skull, it was probably the first he killed - maybe even the first trophy he took.
Paul W.S. Anderson (of Mortal Kombat, Event Horizon, Soldier, and Resident Evil) has signed on to Direct and Write - take that as you will.
The plot is outlined as "Hoping to lure a Predator clan to Antarctica using Alien eggs, a rogue team of scientists are caught in an intergalactic war between the two extremely violent species.".
Lance Henriksen, whom you probably know as Bishop, is signed on. Filming is supposed to begin in "late October" in Prague.
There are rumors that an AvP Teaser/Trailer will be released with the Alien: Direector's Cut theatrical release.
Planet AvP generally has AvP news. Dark Horizons is pretty reliable for any film news, and they state:
"Last Thurs (9/11), there was a promo shoot for the teaser trailer or teaser poster(s) for the new Aliens vs. Predator movie. Now, I don't know when it will be released but what I saw was totally cool. Here's what I saw: A caucasian male, 6"2, in complete Predator suit/make-up getting ready for some still shots. When I saw him, he wasn't wearing the helmet but the costume pretty much was reminiscent of the last two Predator films. The only difference was that the mask (or helmet) looked more metallic than I remember it being (sorry to say it, but, it reminded me of the metallic finish on the Jason mask in Jason X, when he is turned into the SUPER JASON! BUT cooler). Anyway, the suit was only air-brushed from the waist down, which leads me to believe that the shoot was for a teaser poster. But otherwise, the tendrils of 'hair' on the predator were AMAZING. I wasn't ballsy enough to see up close but the crew was shooting the Predator first in 'attack' position, perfect for a sneak peak poster. Once all photography/ filming(?) was complete, the crew dumped a bucket full of see-through green slime/goo on him and took more pictures. This was either meant to be predator blood, or alien blood--couldn't tell, too far away.
"Later in the day, it was the aliens turn. What I CAN tell you (about this specific Alien shoot) is that it was NOT the Queen Alien; rather a more human-like alien who walked on two feet. It looked amazing because he was walking like PUMPKINHEAD (remember that one?) and he too--a middle aged geeky caucasian dude)--was not wearing his helmet. (The alien head itself is very faithful to the drone aliens in the 'Alien' videogames and the ones in Alien 3, with the elongated head going back, behind the body, round in shape; NOT the flared out helmet of the Queen. I found it odd though that the alien had NO tail. It made me wonder if they would add it later in post, or if it was part of the story, where it gets cut off. Here too, pictures of it were taken in 'attack' position, kneeling down w/head intact. This was by far the most exciting part of the day, although the Predator was 'gargantuan' in size compared to the Alien."
"...why taking their whines as representative is wrong-headed."
Ok, I've got a whine for you - Star Wars: Galaxies makes serious departures from the plot, story, and history of the Star Wars universe, fails to capture key elements, and fails to deliver any sense of existing in a Star Wars galaxy.
1) The Empire is Xenophobic. They don't accept aliens. In SW:G, not only can any race (including wookiees, at the time a slave race who lacked a "general" presence in the galaxy) join the Empire - and advance to ranks equal with Humans.
2) Wookiees. Kashyyyk, at the time of the game, is under Imperial blockade. No wookiees are allowed to leave the planet, and large portions of the population are being sold as slaves or used for slave labor.
3) Dathomir is supposed to be a virutally unknown planet, with almost NO visitors until Han wins it in a sabaac game, and takes Leia there in the attempt to win back her heart and convince her to marry him.
4) The faction system of the game prevents Rebels and Imperials alike from having ANY negative impact on "neutrals", ceasing for there to be ANY reason to have a Rebllion in the first place. Why rebel against a government who can't affect you, doesn't have draconian anti-alien policies, and is essentially just a figurehead?
How many serious breaches of Story are needed before we can call this pure rubbish, whose affiliation with Star Wars is no more than the name and a Look n' Feel?
Worse than Force Commander, worse than the Star Wars Christmas Special. And how does VI/LA handle it? Close the boards, delete negative posts, continue to promise that all is well, Jedi is in, and the Space Expansion is coming soon.
Apples and Oranges, DrMorpheus - sure, they're both war, but it's totally different situations.
WWII was about the prevention of genocide - moreso, the situation you describe was about trying to convince the Axis to stop trying to kill people. It wouldn't have been necessary if *they hadn't started aggressions in the first place*.
Was it wrong? Yes, but overall the goal was to save lives. And, thankfully, it was pretty clear who was "right" and "wrong" in that situation.
The situation between Israel and Palestine isn't so clear. Is it wrong to blow yourself up on a bus? Hell yes. Is it wrong to destroy neighborhoods? Hell yes. My biggest problem is that they're fighting over land - land that's sacred, sure, but neither of their religions has "Kill thy neighbor" as a founding principle.
They're killing each other just to kill each other. Any other purpose has been washed away in a sea of blood. Comparing that situation to attempting to stop a war that spanned four continents is like saying an antelope is like a car because they both have horns.
I agree with you for the most part, except I don't think we'll see the fighting there end except if that entire region gets nuked to a sheet of glass, or some sort of divine miracle occurs.
And "...madly competeing for maximum burn time in hell." = well put.:)
"...the Palestinians are not permitted to have any troops...Therefore, any attack carried out in their name is terrorism."
terrorism n.
"The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons." - dictionary.com
Blowing yourself up to kill as many civilians around you is about causing fear, destruction, and death. Legitimizing those attacks as a military campaign wouldn't make it any less terrorism - they're non-combatants (as under the Geneva Convention) carrying out a pseudo-military mission of genocide.
A Palenstinian state would not solve that problem. It is the single biggest roadblock to peace - these militants aren't interested in a peaceful solution, only taking as many women and children out in as cowardly a manner as possible.
Slashdot Mirror
As the guy who asked if you played Splinter Cell or the Rainbow Six series said, these games aren't meant for you.
ShakeyHand is meant to add a simulation/rpg level to the gameplay. If you prefer Quakeisms, you won't like it.
Just as I don't like the lack of it in DX:IW.
-lw
It would be less funny if you knew that shooting a guard once in the face elicits a confused cry, the second time prompts a stern warning, and only on the third time do they attempt to set you on fire.
Throwing large steel drums at a guard only results in a stern talking to, no matter how many times you do it.
In the world of Deus Ex, those are the two chief concerns - a totally nonsensical damage model and an absolutely abysmal AI (it's worse than the first one).
There are no silent stabs in the back, no sharp-shooting headshots. But it doesn't matter, because the AI doesn't quite achieve the competancy of a brain-damaged dog.
-lw
Crafting is prevalent, but it takes a fair amount of money to get started.
There are basically 9 crafting schools: Alchemist, Blacksmith, Bone Worker, Carpenter, Culinarian, Fisher, Goldsmith, Tanner, and Weaver. However, they're also co-dependant, so most crafters belong to at least two schools of crafting. There's no limit on how many you can join.
The actual act of crafting requires a crystal, which is sort of the catalyst for the process. Crafting recipies all require at least one crystal. Crystals can be bought at the Auction House, or gathered by killing mobs with a special spell called "Signet" cast on you - this spell is cast by NPC guards that are widely available.
If your GF doesn't mind the somewhat repetitive process that is crafting in MMOGs, it promises to be quite rewarding in FFXI.
-lw
I thank God you're not in charge of the gaming industry. As other people have pointed out, game mechanics just serve as the interface to the "real meat" of RPGs - the plot, the story, the characters.
Interestingly enough, the games you point out as "using the good aspects of rpgs" don't allow you to have any real impact in the game. Character customization in GTA:VC is superficial at best - I'm sorry, but choice of outfit and weapon does not an RPG make.
KotOR is the best RPG (I would say best game, period) experience on the Xbox. It's partially because of the game mechanics - but mostly because of the story. Its plot is epic and grand, and your character choices matter in a number of very real ways.
For the most part, games like BG:DA and D&D:H "fail" as RPGs because of their lack of meaningful characters and an engaging story. Those action RPGs are, at their worst, repetitive experiences in button-mashing. I'm not saying they can't be fun - I own both games, and found them remarkable the first time around - but they're RPGs in name only.
Having developers "throw out preconceived notions of what RPGs -are-" isn't necessarily a good idea - there are a number of extraordinarily good RPGs that have gotten the two essential aspects right. It's very important to learn from what worked and what didn't - to learn from the mistakes of others - and avoid repeating those pitfalls.
Finally, I'd like to point out where you're simply wrong. NWN alone disproves your concept that "GM-hand-tuned gameplay of pen and paper -dont- work in single-player focused CRPGs." There are a staggeringly large number of single-player focused modules for NWN, all hand-crafted by players/mod makers, that show off the usefulness of having a basic interface through which to tell a story.
The majority of your complaints are with how the games go about telling the story - the game mechanics. Not everyone will agree on one way that is "right" - I personally like being able to choose certain things about my character beforehand. More oft than not, I've found that it's not the game that has offered a bad character choice, but the player who has chosen one not in his style of play. I also don't mind reloading if I get caught in a bad situation. YMMV, but I certainly don't agree with your assessment of what is "wrong" with the RPG community.
-lw
I'm certainly not. What constitutes sharing? Playing it for myself alone, but loud enough for the neighbors to hear? Playing it in the car when my friends are listening? Playing it for a room full of people? Playing it for an auditorium full of people?
Is it my fault if some guy is making a recording without my knowledge?
What if my computer gets hacked, and my legitimate digital backups are compromised? What if my backup CDs are stolen, but not my original copies? What if I still have the backups if the originals are stolen?
Can I buy "used" CDs? What about purchasing a "mix" CD? A recording of a concert? Can I sell my "used" CDs? The copies if I destroy the originals? The digital copies if I destroy the originals?
-lw
> ...and certainly games like Tie Fighter didn't ...
Well, that's not really accurate. The Defender of the Empire expansion for TIE Fighter allowed you to become part of a secret club, advancing along in the ranks until you became "The Emperor's Hand". The advancement featured a little cut scene were someone (presumably Palpatine) shot your arm with Force-lighting, giving you a purple tatoo indicating your rank within the club.
And, arguably, the only pilots to survive THAT many runs in a shieldless snubfighter MUST be force-sensitive.
-lw
Heh, I've had pretty much the same opinion of sports games until a couple weeks ago. I hadn't touched a Madden football game since 1994 or before, and something possessed a buddy and I to pick up the latest for Xbox. We actually had a bast, but it got returned 7 days later just like every other Xbox title I've rented.
I'm not really sure how to address "lack of innovation". Since I'm not of the opinion that it's impossible to make innovations in an already established genre, I don't know how to convince you otherwise.
The category of "shooter" is just so broad that I'm tempted to say we should have a "game where you click a mouse button" category. What constitutes a shooter? Doom? Half-life? Any game in a first-person mode? What about Thief, Deus Ex, or Savage? What about Max Payne? Does the introduction of new ideas, like Bullet Time in MP, constitute innovation?
What about combining genres, regardless of the way it was implemented? Deus Ex added a pretty standard RPG formula on top of a great FPS plot, and I think it made for a unique and incredible game experience. GTA3 falls into the same category - there's nothing really *new* about it. It was an outstanding game, certainly, but it combined the influences of Carmageddon, third-person shooters, Leisure Suit Larry, and crime dramas into one package.
And, in truth, the same exact thing applies to consoles. There's nothing new that they do - it seems like the majority of console titles are just the next game in a franchise. Link, Mario, Virtua Fighter, Castlevania, Jak, the multitude of sports games....
Unfortunately, a "good game" falls into a very, very specific category from person to person. I'm currently having a lot of fun with FFXI, and am really looking forward to Deus Ex 2. I'm very likely to go back and play GTA:VC for a third time. But some of the games that people say are groundbreaking - like Halo - just don't interest me.
-lw
"If it's not a POV shooter, or an RPG, or a RTS, it's not shipping for PC (to a good approximation)."
Hogwash. #1, you forgot Turn-based strategy games - like AoW:SM, or GalCiv. #2, you forgot Sports games - like Madden NFL 2004 and Tiger Woods PGA Tour 2004. Try GameRankings.com to see what you're missing.
Not to mention all the obscenely obvious stuff - player created mods, faster deployment of additional content, and an incredibly expansive lineup of online multiplayer games. Consoles are still in their online infancy.
You don't like PC games - that's fine. You're of the opinion that they're stagnating - that's fine, too. It doesn't change the fact that many games come out for multiple platforms, and most of the best wind up making the jump at some point - like GTA to PC, and finally to XBox... or SoF2, or R6... I can keep going on.
Simple fact: there are people who don't like playing games six to ten feet away from a grainy television screen displaying low resolution images on an extremely limited controller.
-lw
I like to look at MMOGs like they are - or should be - living worlds. Instead of PCs "gathering wood while offline", I prefer the notion of NPC hirelings to do "boring, tedious" stuff.
In my opinion, there are basically two ways to do things in life - learn how to do it yourself, or pay someone else to do it. Being taught how to do something falls into the "pay someone" category, imho, and basically should jump you past the "boring, tedious" step of tradeskills. Ideally, the "masterwork" sections should focus on how you create whatever object you're interested in making - like trying out new things in the quest to make cheaper or more superior products.
Merchants aren't made overnight, and I think this system does a good job of reflecting that.
-lw
I have all of them, except the original AvP oneshot in DHP.
-lw
"So you're berating someone who actually happened to have read the original post because you didn't have the minimal ability to understand it, even when it was pointed out to you directly?"
This from a guy who failed to read the post to which he responds?
Me: "By definition, there is *NO* PvP that can exist without consequence."
You: "You didn't read his post."
The original poster's desire to engage in antisocial activities without consequence cannot be fulfilled against another person. The consequence of his antisocial action is that the other person's player is in some way effected - injured, maimed, killed, destroyed, whatever.
His desire to act without consequence limits him to games where players cannot effect each other. I suggest Doom on God Mode, though there are a few places where you can still be effected. Though, arguably, *all* actions have some consequence.
The quote of mine - "There just needs to be a real consequence to these actions." - is directly in reference to a system that would allow antisocial MMOG players to engage in whatever activities they like, while giving those that have no desire to even allow themselves to be threatened the protection they desire. Again, try reading the post.
Next time you pull up to berate someone who actually has something intelligent to say, try smashing youself in the head with frozen meat. It certainly can't reduce the quality of your posts, and it might even stop you from posting such drivel.
-lw
"He isn't saying we should have Restricted PvP. He wants PvP on EVERYONE in the game."
PvP on EVERYONE exists, it's called Shadowbane, or friendly-fire FPSers.
By definition, there is *NO* PvP that can exist without consequence. Either on the level of "one side gets killed", or "someone is hurt", or "first blood has been drawn".
And note that I didn't say anything about restricting PvP from anyone - only that there are game mechanics that can work in the favor of both PvP+ and PvP- people. Hell, EQ had a faction system.
If there are going to be NPC towns, I favor an "outcasting" system - where the players who don't wish to obey society's laws are no long allowed to participate in society. Throw characters in jail if they can be caught, or cut 'em down, or whatever.
There just needs to be a real consequence to these actions. The threat of "getting killed" means nothing when the character respawns right away.
-lw
Rerestricted PvP doesn't have to exclude everyone from the game. There are plenty of game mechanics available to discourage wanton chaos while allowing players the freedom to make their own choices on whether or not to follow the law.
The put-down isn't needed, either - plenty of adults play competitve games, or do the World Series not count?
-lw
The X-Wing series are some of my most favorite games of all time. It's a continual dissapointment to see the space sim genre shafted year after year. There was a petition going for TIE Fighter 2, but that stuff never works.
It's too bad. I never get the same feel in the RS games that I did in XW/TF/XvT/XW:A...
-lw
"I personally hate online multiplayer gaming in just about every form..."
That's okay - you don't need to enjoy it. Just don't try to stop those of us who do.
"...I object to the idea of continuing to pay for a game I've already bought."
There are no games that require you to pay for them after you've purchased them - period. The only types of games that have a service charge are MMOGs, and that service charge is the cost of server upkeep, bandwidth, and all the other services that you're taking a part of by playing their game.
It's not like buying fuel for your car; it's like paying for telephone service, or electricity, or water, or trash pickup, or cable tv - you're purchasing a portion of someone else's time, usually in the form of upkeep for something you're using.
Those games that don't provide additional services don't have the additional cost associated with them. Saying that since some games don't require subscriptions, none should, is like saying you shouldn't have to continue to pay for trash service, or that curbside pick-up should come free with the purchase of a trash can.
The best part about it is that you don't have to buy the game, or pay for the service, if you don't want to. But again, don't belittle the people who enjoy renting time on persistant/dedicated servers.
-lw
No worries, it's not exactly common knowledge - I've just been a fan of all the alien/colonial marine/predator franchises since... well, right around 1989. I was fairly comic-obsessed, especially with the quasi-dark stuff... it's harder when it's your own money (hah), but AvP/2 are a couple of my favorite concepts/games.
-lw
That's not true.
The first AvP Comic was released on Nov. 1, 1989, and appeared in "Dark Horse Presents" before that.
Predator 2 was released over a year later, on Nov. 21, 1990.
-lw
I totally disagree, but I'm a HUGE fan of the AvP PC games. I didn't encounter any of the bugs from the first AvP, and the "sadistic" save game limitation was to provide for a serious sense of atmosphere - being able to save whenever you want, as many times as you want, takes away any sense of danger (and in my opinion, accomplishment).
I even played the first one through on Director's Cut, without the ability to save at all during a level. That was *awesome*.
Some of my favorite Multiplayer moments involve either AvP or AvP2. A buddy and I used to hop into an AvP2 game in the evening, and suddenly find ourselves staring dawn in the face...
-lw
Sure, in a one-on-one fight, a Predator can probably beat an Alien.
But how about one-on-many? One of the Alien's strengths being numbers, and all...
If you'll forgive me some AvP-related fanism, the Predators have to main species they hunt - "softskins" (humans) and "hardskins" (aliens). A Predator becomes blooded by going on a "hardskin" hunting expedition, and is (generally) branded with the mark of its (his/her) mentor.
Seeing as the Pred in Pred2 only had one Alien skull, it was probably the first he killed - maybe even the first trophy he took.
-lw
Alien Vs. Predator
Paul W.S. Anderson (of Mortal Kombat, Event Horizon, Soldier, and Resident Evil) has signed on to Direct and Write - take that as you will.
The plot is outlined as "Hoping to lure a Predator clan to Antarctica using Alien eggs, a rogue team of scientists are caught in an intergalactic war between the two extremely violent species.".
Lance Henriksen, whom you probably know as Bishop, is signed on. Filming is supposed to begin in "late October" in Prague.
There are rumors that an AvP Teaser/Trailer will be released with the Alien: Direector's Cut theatrical release.
Planet AvP generally has AvP news. Dark Horizons is pretty reliable for any film news, and they state: "Last Thurs (9/11), there was a promo shoot for the teaser trailer or teaser poster(s) for the new Aliens vs. Predator movie. Now, I don't know when it will be released but what I saw was totally cool. Here's what I saw: A caucasian male, 6"2, in complete Predator suit/make-up getting ready for some still shots. When I saw him, he wasn't wearing the helmet but the costume pretty much was reminiscent of the last two Predator films. The only difference was that the mask (or helmet) looked more metallic than I remember it being (sorry to say it, but, it reminded me of the metallic finish on the Jason mask in Jason X, when he is turned into the SUPER JASON! BUT cooler). Anyway, the suit was only air-brushed from the waist down, which leads me to believe that the shoot was for a teaser poster. But otherwise, the tendrils of 'hair' on the predator were AMAZING. I wasn't ballsy enough to see up close but the crew was shooting the Predator first in 'attack' position, perfect for a sneak peak poster. Once all photography/ filming(?) was complete, the crew dumped a bucket full of see-through green slime/goo on him and took more pictures. This was either meant to be predator blood, or alien blood--couldn't tell, too far away.
"Later in the day, it was the aliens turn. What I CAN tell you (about this specific Alien shoot) is that it was NOT the Queen Alien; rather a more human-like alien who walked on two feet. It looked amazing because he was walking like PUMPKINHEAD (remember that one?) and he too--a middle aged geeky caucasian dude)--was not wearing his helmet. (The alien head itself is very faithful to the drone aliens in the 'Alien' videogames and the ones in Alien 3, with the elongated head going back, behind the body, round in shape; NOT the flared out helmet of the Queen. I found it odd though that the alien had NO tail. It made me wonder if they would add it later in post, or if it was part of the story, where it gets cut off. Here too, pictures of it were taken in 'attack' position, kneeling down w/head intact. This was by far the most exciting part of the day, although the Predator was 'gargantuan' in size compared to the Alien."
-lw
"...why taking their whines as representative is wrong-headed."
Ok, I've got a whine for you - Star Wars: Galaxies makes serious departures from the plot, story, and history of the Star Wars universe, fails to capture key elements, and fails to deliver any sense of existing in a Star Wars galaxy.
1) The Empire is Xenophobic. They don't accept aliens. In SW:G, not only can any race (including wookiees, at the time a slave race who lacked a "general" presence in the galaxy) join the Empire - and advance to ranks equal with Humans.
2) Wookiees. Kashyyyk, at the time of the game, is under Imperial blockade. No wookiees are allowed to leave the planet, and large portions of the population are being sold as slaves or used for slave labor.
3) Dathomir is supposed to be a virutally unknown planet, with almost NO visitors until Han wins it in a sabaac game, and takes Leia there in the attempt to win back her heart and convince her to marry him.
4) The faction system of the game prevents Rebels and Imperials alike from having ANY negative impact on "neutrals", ceasing for there to be ANY reason to have a Rebllion in the first place. Why rebel against a government who can't affect you, doesn't have draconian anti-alien policies, and is essentially just a figurehead?
How many serious breaches of Story are needed before we can call this pure rubbish, whose affiliation with Star Wars is no more than the name and a Look n' Feel?
Worse than Force Commander, worse than the Star Wars Christmas Special. And how does VI/LA handle it? Close the boards, delete negative posts, continue to promise that all is well, Jedi is in, and the Space Expansion is coming soon.
-lw
Apples and Oranges, DrMorpheus - sure, they're both war, but it's totally different situations.
WWII was about the prevention of genocide - moreso, the situation you describe was about trying to convince the Axis to stop trying to kill people. It wouldn't have been necessary if *they hadn't started aggressions in the first place*.
Was it wrong? Yes, but overall the goal was to save lives. And, thankfully, it was pretty clear who was "right" and "wrong" in that situation.
The situation between Israel and Palestine isn't so clear. Is it wrong to blow yourself up on a bus? Hell yes. Is it wrong to destroy neighborhoods? Hell yes. My biggest problem is that they're fighting over land - land that's sacred, sure, but neither of their religions has "Kill thy neighbor" as a founding principle.
They're killing each other just to kill each other. Any other purpose has been washed away in a sea of blood. Comparing that situation to attempting to stop a war that spanned four continents is like saying an antelope is like a car because they both have horns.
-lw
I agree with you for the most part, except I don't think we'll see the fighting there end except if that entire region gets nuked to a sheet of glass, or some sort of divine miracle occurs.
:)
And "...madly competeing for maximum burn time in hell." = well put.
-lw
"...the Palestinians are not permitted to have any troops ...Therefore, any attack carried out in their name is terrorism."
terrorism
n.
"The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."
- dictionary.com
Blowing yourself up to kill as many civilians around you is about causing fear, destruction, and death. Legitimizing those attacks as a military campaign wouldn't make it any less terrorism - they're non-combatants (as under the Geneva Convention) carrying out a pseudo-military mission of genocide.
A Palenstinian state would not solve that problem. It is the single biggest roadblock to peace - these militants aren't interested in a peaceful solution, only taking as many women and children out in as cowardly a manner as possible.
-lw