Wha? I've not played Mass Effect or Resident Evil (well, I played a demo of RE1 ~14 years ago but I hated the controls and camera angles and any time I've seen someone playing the sequels I can't say it's got me any more interested), but I love the Resident Evil movies.
How does House of the Dead fit into your list? It's available to the public in the arcades - plenty of casual gamers will have played it, and the plot didn't seem special to me.
Well, Max Payne was actually a TPS, but I agree with you. Gaming is not nerdy these days. There may be a distinction between "hardcore" and "casual" gaming, but that is simply down to how much time people have to play their games, their individual skill level, and their interests.
Because right or wrong, there are a large amount of people who wont play a computer game because its too "nerd like"
What? Where have you been for the past four years? I even hear there's plenty of girls who play WoW. Of course WoW and Wii games are designed to cater for noobs, but it's still plenty of people playing computer games. Gaming is very mainstream these days.
The only game->movie film I really thought was anywhere near good was Tomb Raider (the first one, the second was "meh"). Though perhaps the fact I only ever played the demos helped with that (didn't really like the game).
Yeah, with a large botnet it would be pretty hard to tell what is legitimate traffic and what isn't.
I think the priority concern should be stopping these botnets being created in the first place. At least then if an organisation wants to DDoS a site, they have to do it with their own resources, which would be difficult and expensive.
My point was that many people may have bought it but not liked it. The fact that so many people bought the sequel probably discredits that idea quite badly though.
That's true for competitive FPSes, and I was considering going to go into genre specifics in my comment, but basically it's obvious that not all games are FPSes. And in fact, for co-op FPS stuff it's still quite good fun despite having half the screen estate.
Yeah I have a few games that I only played a couple of days then never really picked up again. MGS4, Assassin's Creed, Fallout 3.. just never seem to be in the mood for them again though. Now that I've played and enjoyed Oblivion for a while perhaps I'll "get" Fallout 3 a bit more.
I suppose the fact that I haven't played WoW or any of the other big MMOs shows through here then. My limited experience with MMOs mostly comes from MUDs where people take the RP relatively seriously. I imagined that Fallout would be a lot more fun with other humans around, but I forgot that humans are often douches.
Indeed. I haven't done that much of the story in it, I just spent a lot of time running around exploring and doing side quests like the Fighter's Guild stuff. Then I tried going into an Oblivion Gate and everything was 10x harder than the gates I did early on, and there were Minotaurs roaming around the countryside near the gates, etc. I just assumed the gates would get more difficult each time, but apparently if I just did them all at a low level it would be easy. It kind of ruins the immersion in the game world to do things that way IMO.
Correct. Of course players should be doing well by their own skill, it's the "skills" that you get simply because you've killed 100 enemies (or whatever) that I think are dumb. That's fine for a single player game as it's meant to represent your in game character growing as the story progresses, but in online action games, the key element should be player skill.
Now of course it is still possible for a skilful low level player to kick a crappy high level player's butt, but for players of evenly matched skill, the one with more time in the game will win simply because they have more free time. That doesn't seem right to me.
These days you can even pay to get better in game stuff. Again it's pretty sad. Smart move on the developers' part of course, but pathetic for the players that still feel a sense of achievement even if the only reason they're winning is that they've paid real money to do so! It seems a similar mentality to cheaters. I don't get why people find that type of behaviour rewarding, unless their only aim in life is to grief people.
For PS3 you could try Supersonic Acrobatic Rocket-Powered Battle-Cars, it's quite good fun - footbal with a bunch of RC cars that can drive up the walls/ceiling if you have enough momentum, and do rocket jumps. You can also get the original Crash Team Racing on the PS3 store for £3.49:)
It's still my favourite game of all time too, though I stopped playing games when I went off to University, and now even though I game, I don't game on PC anymore.. but I probably will replay OF one day, or try out one of the single player mods.
This is pretty much exactly how I feel too. Operation Flashpoint, Grand Theft Auto III series rank as my favourite single player experiences of all time, and I enjoy Oblivion despite me not really usually being one for RPGs.
Certain single player games manage to have their levels on rails without spoiling the immersion too much, but there's a lot of crap out there. I played the demo of Killzone after hearing all the hype. Sure the graphics were nice, but you couldn't even jump over a 2 foot obstacle. WTF? I'm not playing that shit no matter how pretty it is, thankyou very much.
You have some valid points, but also some that are blatantly just self preference. I'd say you're in the minority for wanting the screen to yourself. It's nice for them to at least include the option for people who do want it. Games like MarioKart would have been way less fun and successful without local multiplayer.
I used to wish that certain games had multiplayer, but then I got my wish once when they included it in in Uncharted 2. It sucked. And all the single player achievements were geared towards unlocking stuff for multiplayer rather than single player, so I have only played the single player story once so far, rather than the 3 times I did with the original when I was trying to find all the hidden treasures . Uncharted is one of the few games I've ever felt was worth replaying, the single player gameplay and level design is great.
My original £35 on Half-Life lasted years, due to Team Fortress Classic and Counter-Strike. In terms of cost-per-hour, it probably ended up as the cheapest entertainment product I ever bought. But cheapest does not mean best.
Cheapest doesn't have to mean best, but Counter-Strike is probably still the top on my list of multiplayer games that I've really enjoyed. No stupid levels to acquire with grinding. Just good old fashioned hand-eye coordination and tactics.
These days when I get a game like Battlefield or CoD, I expect to be shit until I play a few days to get all the weapon upgrades I want and that kind of thing, then I can start to actually put effort in once I feel I'm playing on a level playing field. I find it pretty silly that the players who have been playing for weeks should be the ones that have an in game advantage over noobs. IMO if you want to do all that XP crap, you should be able to lose XP for playing badly, and the higher your XP gets the harder the game becomes. Then being high level would actually mean something.
I bought Fallout 3 because of the hype, but I only played it for a couple of days. Just because the game sold well doesn't mean it was good. It was me trying to give RPGs another chance, but it just made me wish it was an MMO. Then I found out about Oblivion and bought it, it was a much better single player world because it's actually fun to wander around in and explore rather than just being miles and miles of grey.
Well, I don't like lying in any form to be honest, but it's pathetic when you hear the lies from China and North Korea. They say completely ridiculous things, like they're either insane, or they think the rest of the world is incredibly dumb.
along the same lines (except on international scale) of "i'll pay you 5 dollars not to go to 's party"
Bullshit. It's along the same lines as "if you go to the party I'll never sell you anything again, effectively crippling your economy because everything is made here these days". It's blackmail, pure and simple.
Slashdot Mirror
Wha? I've not played Mass Effect or Resident Evil (well, I played a demo of RE1 ~14 years ago but I hated the controls and camera angles and any time I've seen someone playing the sequels I can't say it's got me any more interested), but I love the Resident Evil movies.
How does House of the Dead fit into your list? It's available to the public in the arcades - plenty of casual gamers will have played it, and the plot didn't seem special to me.
Well, Max Payne was actually a TPS, but I agree with you. Gaming is not nerdy these days. There may be a distinction between "hardcore" and "casual" gaming, but that is simply down to how much time people have to play their games, their individual skill level, and their interests.
Because right or wrong, there are a large amount of people who wont play a computer game because its too "nerd like"
What? Where have you been for the past four years? I even hear there's plenty of girls who play WoW. Of course WoW and Wii games are designed to cater for noobs, but it's still plenty of people playing computer games. Gaming is very mainstream these days.
The only game->movie film I really thought was anywhere near good was Tomb Raider (the first one, the second was "meh"). Though perhaps the fact I only ever played the demos helped with that (didn't really like the game).
Yeah, I wouldn't have expected Amazon to have a single point of failure anywhere, it's pretty strange.
Yeah, with a large botnet it would be pretty hard to tell what is legitimate traffic and what isn't.
I think the priority concern should be stopping these botnets being created in the first place. At least then if an organisation wants to DDoS a site, they have to do it with their own resources, which would be difficult and expensive.
only possible under the com/net/org/us/gov/mil TLDs
Whew, so not many sites, and nothing that important then?
My point was that many people may have bought it but not liked it. The fact that so many people bought the sequel probably discredits that idea quite badly though.
That's true for competitive FPSes, and I was considering going to go into genre specifics in my comment, but basically it's obvious that not all games are FPSes. And in fact, for co-op FPS stuff it's still quite good fun despite having half the screen estate.
Yeah I have a few games that I only played a couple of days then never really picked up again. MGS4, Assassin's Creed, Fallout 3.. just never seem to be in the mood for them again though. Now that I've played and enjoyed Oblivion for a while perhaps I'll "get" Fallout 3 a bit more.
I suppose the fact that I haven't played WoW or any of the other big MMOs shows through here then. My limited experience with MMOs mostly comes from MUDs where people take the RP relatively seriously. I imagined that Fallout would be a lot more fun with other humans around, but I forgot that humans are often douches.
Indeed. I haven't done that much of the story in it, I just spent a lot of time running around exploring and doing side quests like the Fighter's Guild stuff. Then I tried going into an Oblivion Gate and everything was 10x harder than the gates I did early on, and there were Minotaurs roaming around the countryside near the gates, etc. I just assumed the gates would get more difficult each time, but apparently if I just did them all at a low level it would be easy. It kind of ruins the immersion in the game world to do things that way IMO.
the measures we use to protect structural iron would probably be decent at keeping them at bay ... so to speak.
But what happens when the paint peels off? :0
Correct. Of course players should be doing well by their own skill, it's the "skills" that you get simply because you've killed 100 enemies (or whatever) that I think are dumb. That's fine for a single player game as it's meant to represent your in game character growing as the story progresses, but in online action games, the key element should be player skill.
Now of course it is still possible for a skilful low level player to kick a crappy high level player's butt, but for players of evenly matched skill, the one with more time in the game will win simply because they have more free time. That doesn't seem right to me.
These days you can even pay to get better in game stuff. Again it's pretty sad. Smart move on the developers' part of course, but pathetic for the players that still feel a sense of achievement even if the only reason they're winning is that they've paid real money to do so! It seems a similar mentality to cheaters. I don't get why people find that type of behaviour rewarding, unless their only aim in life is to grief people.
Cute? Zelda and MapleStory are cute. Oblivion is damned creepy in places - especially in the Shivering Isles.
It does however fuck up your liver and make you fat :P
For PS3 you could try Supersonic Acrobatic Rocket-Powered Battle-Cars, it's quite good fun - footbal with a bunch of RC cars that can drive up the walls/ceiling if you have enough momentum, and do rocket jumps. You can also get the original Crash Team Racing on the PS3 store for £3.49 :)
It's still my favourite game of all time too, though I stopped playing games when I went off to University, and now even though I game, I don't game on PC anymore.. but I probably will replay OF one day, or try out one of the single player mods.
This is pretty much exactly how I feel too. Operation Flashpoint, Grand Theft Auto III series rank as my favourite single player experiences of all time, and I enjoy Oblivion despite me not really usually being one for RPGs.
Certain single player games manage to have their levels on rails without spoiling the immersion too much, but there's a lot of crap out there. I played the demo of Killzone after hearing all the hype. Sure the graphics were nice, but you couldn't even jump over a 2 foot obstacle. WTF? I'm not playing that shit no matter how pretty it is, thankyou very much.
You have some valid points, but also some that are blatantly just self preference. I'd say you're in the minority for wanting the screen to yourself. It's nice for them to at least include the option for people who do want it. Games like MarioKart would have been way less fun and successful without local multiplayer.
I used to wish that certain games had multiplayer, but then I got my wish once when they included it in in Uncharted 2. It sucked. And all the single player achievements were geared towards unlocking stuff for multiplayer rather than single player, so I have only played the single player story once so far, rather than the 3 times I did with the original when I was trying to find all the hidden treasures . Uncharted is one of the few games I've ever felt was worth replaying, the single player gameplay and level design is great.
If I want to socialize I'll go to the pub or the park. I suspect Mr Exec is more interested in the endless monthly fees they can gouge from players.
Somehow I think you're spending far more money in the pub than on monthly fees, but you don't seem to be complaining about that.
Me on the other hand, I'd much rather spend the money on games than boozing.
My original £35 on Half-Life lasted years, due to Team Fortress Classic and Counter-Strike. In terms of cost-per-hour, it probably ended up as the cheapest entertainment product I ever bought. But cheapest does not mean best.
Cheapest doesn't have to mean best, but Counter-Strike is probably still the top on my list of multiplayer games that I've really enjoyed. No stupid levels to acquire with grinding. Just good old fashioned hand-eye coordination and tactics.
These days when I get a game like Battlefield or CoD, I expect to be shit until I play a few days to get all the weapon upgrades I want and that kind of thing, then I can start to actually put effort in once I feel I'm playing on a level playing field. I find it pretty silly that the players who have been playing for weeks should be the ones that have an in game advantage over noobs. IMO if you want to do all that XP crap, you should be able to lose XP for playing badly, and the higher your XP gets the harder the game becomes. Then being high level would actually mean something.
I bought Fallout 3 because of the hype, but I only played it for a couple of days. Just because the game sold well doesn't mean it was good. It was me trying to give RPGs another chance, but it just made me wish it was an MMO. Then I found out about Oblivion and bought it, it was a much better single player world because it's actually fun to wander around in and explore rather than just being miles and miles of grey.
Eh, I'm sure they sold a game or two in America.
Well, I don't like lying in any form to be honest, but it's pathetic when you hear the lies from China and North Korea. They say completely ridiculous things, like they're either insane, or they think the rest of the world is incredibly dumb.
along the same lines (except on international scale) of "i'll pay you 5 dollars not to go to 's party"
Bullshit. It's along the same lines as "if you go to the party I'll never sell you anything again, effectively crippling your economy because everything is made here these days". It's blackmail, pure and simple.