Evilmetal's forum posts

#1 Edited by Evilmetal (468 posts) -


I have no idea wtf I just played. There is no thinking involved at all. It's just muscle memory. I think my IQ dropped after playing the game. I think I forgot my name after playing a session of this game.

It's too fast of gameplay. It doesn't make any sense. Mindless responses. I don't really recall any interesting moment that stands out about a match. If you were to ask me about, for example, BF2, even now I can fondly recall nice matches, interesting moments that occurred years ago. But for Titanfall, the gameplay is just a blur. I double-jump... I shoot... I eject... rinse wash repeat, in essence.

The gameplay style can be defined by a single term: Hyperventilating .

#2 Edited by Evilmetal (468 posts) -


I did, you're correct. It's a new challenge; old tricks may not work the same on the harder difficulties. I thought the game was worth the purchase after playing through it. The positives outweigh the negatives.

#3 Edited by Evilmetal (468 posts) -

I thought Hitman Absolution was going to really suck, but it turned out well. I thought the instinct would have over simplified the game, but it seems okay after all. Could use some fine tuning. But the instinct system to see enemies through walls, seems okay. It's a system, however, that is too forgiving. I think only people that make foot-step noise, or speak, should be displayed on the instinct view; you know, people who make noise. It should be a 'fog of war' type of logic found in RTS games.

The disguise mechanics are messed up, by how sometimes a guy across the map is suspicious of you; that's stupid.

Also they should have included a custom difficulty setting. This way you can fine tune everything from disabling instinct, but having difficulty on normal; etc, etc... It would be interesting if in a custom difficulty setting one could modify the AI route timings, to altering.... for example: If the AI usually waits at a position for 20 seconds, apply a modifier of -5 seconds or so. To change it up. Also, with a setting, objects that need to be acquired (an ex: fuses) could be put into other parts of map on each play.

I don't like being 'assessed' every moment of the game, by a score system. If anything, show me at the end of the mission only. Isn't there a setting to remove the score from the interface?

While playing the game, it felt too guided. It's a story driven game. I thought to myself "seems like the new Max Payne, without the slo-mo". There are 'sandbox' type of levels but they are mixed in with linear maps.

I liked the cover system. Fist-fighting was interesting, but the button icons seemed too small (or unclear).

It was a lengthy game. Seemed overall like a nice game.

#4 Posted by Evilmetal (468 posts) -

They should let Remedy, remedy the franchise with Max Payne 4.

#5 Posted by Evilmetal (468 posts) -

doesn't this 'episodic' game model seem "played out" ?  
Initially wasn't the logic that Telltale develop games episodically, for funding reasons?  They've got money now. They've expanded from Sam and Max and developed other games. Was it not the case that Telltale couldn't get the original Sam and Max voices because they couldn't sign a deal with the original voice actors to do episodes? that Telltale didn't have the funding for all at once payment; but only on a per-episode basis?
Why continue with episodes? 
With the Walking Dead, they sold the game at full cost but only gave their customers the first of five parts. You give your money up front for an incomplete product? or did they complete it? does anyone know what state it's even in? People are giving money to a black hole?
It's a sneaky trick/tactic on their part to extend the marketing for their game. If they released the entire game in one fell swoop, it would initially sell well and then taper off within the first few months. Episodically the hype of the game is extended, unwarranted, and whenever they release an episode [months apart] they 'breathe new life' into the game with 'new' content.  But it's not new content. It's content they are indebted to release, but they use it as a way to reinvigorate sales.   

Maybe if they release a complete game people will think it's of low value, as a whole?  Players would critique it as any other game and would say "It was a short one play through type of game" ?  This is the only way these types of games [no multiplayer, little replayability] can exist in today's market?

#6 Posted by Evilmetal (468 posts) -
Those 'boosters' were $10? I guess by today's standards it would be a steal. Those boosters had new weapons and factions, in addition to new maps and vehicles.
I'm not a member of the EAUK forums, but I wonder what that community thought of the boosters back in the day. EA has put that forum into read-only mode since June 1 2012, and will delete all of it by next week. Many ideas, thoughts, and comments will be lost. They said that further talk of Battlefield will take place on Battlelog. It's EA's way of censorship, and controlling negative comments. Gamers will be afraid of saying something for fear of having their game account banned and losing access to playing.
I found this anandtech thread on the booster packs (2006): http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=1785009
It's an interesting read, to see what others thought of the boosters back then. 

Personally I didn't buy the boosters. They were garbage.  Even when the boosters were offered for free, I loaded the maps in LAN to just explore the maps and fire the weapons. When the boosters came out for free, it was already dead. No one played those maps, from what I recall. There were many mods out that provided superior gameplay and content, for free, than what DICE offered for a fee.  Today EADICE are releasing content without any mod 'competition' .  
EA dodges the mod tools questions, but you see what happens when there is no one else you have to compete against. If there were mod tools, the developers of those mods would be independent. They could be anti-EADICE. They could make announcements and release content that would be better than EADICE's whenever they wanted. A mod developer could make a post about upcoming units, and gameplay updates... and then when EA would unveil information about their upcoming DLC, people would be more critical of EA. "Oh, those douche bags want us to pay for this shit? The [insert mod name] offers better gameplay and content. I'm not spending money on this EADICE bullshit. FUCK EA!" 
It's silly.
You see corporate developers trying to foster a community via forums and twitter, trying to mimic the past when, for example, the Counter-Strike mod team were making their game and asking the community for feedback. CS was done for free. Today you see corporate businesses use those old tools of community, for monetary gains. The corporate world says and does things just for money... for profit margins, control, etc... In the end it doesn't work out because the corporate model creates a false passion for the game.  
When a game is free or of good value, you won't see people whining and moaning about the flaws. But when hardcore money is involved.... a certain service quality is expected.  I don't remember in the early days of PC gaming, developers releasing patches. Only in the extreme cases. It was a rarity.   But when you had mod communities form, there was this concept of frequent updates, listening to the community for tweaks, and allowing modification of content. The corporate world most likely saw the potential in harnessing the 'community' and extorting them of money.
The BF3 DLCs include content that is usable in vanilla BF3 (the BF2 boosters were independent). Someone who does not have the DLC will see that they were 'pwnd' by someone using a DLC weapon; in the 'kill-cam' the non-DLC player will see "Premium Player"; the non-DLC player will see the new knife used on him; ... new camos; etc.   You combine this with Battlelog (facebook clone for gaming) and it's just low class on EA's part. They want the non-DLC player to feel left-out. To feel like the black sheep; to be the fly in a glass of milk, etc, etc...   They want to psychologically coerce the non-DLC owner to make the low-valued purchases, rather than EA having their product speak for itself on its own merit of quality--they use tricks.
"EA is the devil, EA is the devil" ... Look also at how other developers/publishers employ the same tactics. It's all over the place.
#7 Posted by Evilmetal (468 posts) -
I came across some video of the DLC and there were people with, as you said, a label of Premium Player".   EA are unstoppable when it comes to just degrading their customers.  They want to make you feel lacking,

With the B2K DLC, it was all about "We want to reward our dedicated fans", which was just complete bullshit. It should have been free for anyone with a previous copy of a Battlefield game. Now with Premium? Your dedication was not enough, you did not make the deity happy.
I'm glad I did not buy BF3. 
The unfortunate thing about those who did buy BF3 is that EA's goal, with your purchase, is to make you feel "invested". They want to make you feel as though you put so much into the game, you can't back out now; you gotta move forward and make the purchases. They are fucking with your minds. It's straight up low class and I won't support that shit.
EA has their 'COD' clone in BF3, and this is the future of the game.  It's the......... Activision-ization of BF3....
ARMA3 is looking better every day... heck even ARMA2 is better.  I know many people who like DayZ many times over BF3. BF3 is such meaningless gameplay. With DayZ is constant voip to communicate tactics and thinking. THINKING!
I was surfing online and I came across this resume and the dude had "Thinker" as a skill he wanted to share. Too funny. Thinking is a skill now folks. Not everyone has this ability.... it's a lost art.....
#8 Posted by Evilmetal (468 posts) -
@cannonballBAM said:

@Getz said:

Put that money in the bank and by the time fall rolls around you'll have enough interest to pay for all of it a la carte if you really wanted to. Season passes are kind of a rip-off designed to get you to shell out for something before you know if it's good or not.


Hold a second.
Bank and interest in the same sentence?
Banks don't give interest. It's like 0.00001 interest today.  In the old days, banks would have a board showing the different interest rates for various account types (2%, 3%, 4%, etc..), in the bank. Today the rates are so pathetic, they don't show anything. You have to ask for the rates. 
Even with a few thousand dollars in the bank, after a year's interest... it'll barely be $5. 

Banks are not what they use to be.
#9 Posted by Evilmetal (468 posts) -

if your motherboard supports 16GB of RAM, you should aim for that amount.
Look, don't think that because you'll have a lot of extra RAM that it will go to waste. There are ways that it can be used.
Consider a RAM disk.
A RAM disk software application takes a user specified amount of RAM and makes it visible to the system as a 'hard drive'.   RAM is very fast, faster than an SSD. So if you can isolate some RAM space for a game (or software application) installation...... it's something to consider.  
RAM disk software can 'backup' the RAM's contents on the hdd when you want to shutdown; and load it into RAM when you boot up.
RAM is volatile. So when the system loses power, the content of RAM are lost. It may be of interest to exploit this feature of RAM for your own privacy.

#10 Posted by Evilmetal (468 posts) -

what they are saying is that they are making their game accessible. Instead of mentally 'walking up the stairs' they have 'installed a ramp' .  
People these days, whether it's because of chemicals in the food, drinking water, or vaccines, are becoming mentally challenged and slow.  So when such a person sits down to play a game requiring strategy these days, they are unable to complete the challenge.  They may be able to see a youtube video of someone else beating the level, but THEY want to beat it and claim they accomplished something independently; that they are psychologically special.  If a game pushes someone to the limits, to have patience, and to put thought into it; a challenged person will likely just give up on the game if they don't succeed.  
So today you see a trend of dumbing down games, so 'everyone can win' quicker.  
One of the first wake-up calls to this accessible edition of the game is the ability of Hitman to see the paths the enemy is walking.  Instead of making use of the audio engine. so that the gamers hear the foot steps, they put in a walking-path-line that is visible through walls. If they want to include that as a cheat after beating the game on a certain difficulty (or maybe for those who play on easy), I wouldn't care. But now it seems like it's a core feature from the start. Probably one will have to unlock the 'classic' gameplay.  Strategy and thinking (classic mode) will be unlockable play-styles, while dumbed down no-patience gameplay will be in it from the beginning.

"Hitman less sandboxy" .  In the past Hitman games, the maps were massive. Your insertion point would be far from the action and you had to 'work' your way in by observing and taking advantage the surroundings.
The developer claims of '10 doors too many' is silly.  They should refine the mission documentation so that enough information exists for the player to know how to 'avoid' many of those '10 doors'.   The "10 doors" mentioned refers to the freedom in a level, not literally 10 doors.  It's the idea of "Wow, this level is large.... where do I go now?"    I guess they want the level to be playable WITHOUT reading the mission description.................. reading is so old fashioned.
Rather than the gamer thinking 'Let me try here and let me try there' , it's "fuck it I don't have time for this and I don't have time for that".  -- they get fed up and say this game is bullshit. Why kneel down to quitters without patience? People spend hundreds of hours playing the same shit over and over again in BF3 and other RPG-esque games. People don't want to be strategically patient with Hitman? He's a Hitman for goodness sake. Hitmen take their time and plan shit out. 
"Ya know.... gamez r lik complx...k..."    
A future Hitman game will not even have full motion control. It'll just be a movie with context-timed button presses. And even then "Omz buton has 2 be pushd to fastly 4 me".  A dumbed down people will also have a dumbed down language to go with it too.
It appears that any game released for the console must be 'accessible'.  I had made this observation in the past, and then it appeared via video last year with the Building the Bastion 05 video.  You notice how usually during loading there are "tips" on the screen? Even for PC games. It's an xbox suggested solution to engaging the player, which is part of their TCR (technical certification requirement). And if you watch the 'Building the Bastion 05 video you see the developers talking about their experiences of resolving an issue. Greg Kasavin even says that the TCR is like the "constitution" for Xbox games.
If you search online there is the TCR text of the 2009 version from some Chinese websites. I don't know if it's complete and I cannot find the latest TCR. It is said that developers can only access it and are not allowed to publish it online.  
The TCR outlines Microsoft's "philosophy" for gaming. So a 'proper' game will abide by those rules. Some seem legit, but don't be fooled. What happens if you don't pass the certification? You can't publish on the system?  "It's our way or the highway". So when we see dumbed down games, "accessible" games, you gotta ask who really wants those features? the developers or are the developers meeting a ... 'constitutional requirement for game publishing'  that's out of their control?