mattblitz's forum posts

  • 21 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
#1 Posted by mattblitz (21 posts) -
@AuthenticM said:
" I never was very high on any leaderboard, but this doesn't mean I've never been incredibly good at any video game. I was a near-god at Resistance 2 multiplayer. I would, 98% of the time, finish first in every game I played, regardless of type. I came across people who where very high on the board (in the first 30 lets say), and I moped the floored with them. Leaderboards aren't the best way to mesure a person's skills. Sure, it's a neat tool, but often times the people who are at the top are there because they are crazy and play constantly.  Still on the subject of Resistance 2, I played this game for several months after its release. The game kept track of how many days, hours and minutes one had played, and I had calculated that, based on the time played by the top dogs on the board, they had to had play the game in average of 10 hours or so per day, and the game was already out for several months. That's crazy.  So my point is, often times the top players on a leaderboard are crazy people with no lives. And you should not envy them. "

 That's a bit of a different situation, though.  With a game that's been out that long that ONLY tracks something that goes up no matter what (meaning, if you had your 4 year old brother hop in the game and not know what's going on but manage to get a kill, that would actually help your total score), then yes, playing time is the dominant factor.  However, when you look at the early game, when everyone really has the same chance, you'll see the best players at the top.  You have no idea how hard it is to get #1 in a big multiplayer shooter where EVERYONE is trying to play as much as possible.   Only the best of the best will accomplish this feat in the early game, and if someone eventually has the dedication to log on 10 hours every single day, then they deserve the tiny bit of reward for an enormous amount of work. 
 
With that said, Black Ops did it much better in terms of FPS leaderboadrs because they ranked it by score per minute instead of total [x].  That way, playing time is no longer a factor (in fact, it can almost be a negative factor) in your rankings.  #1's in Black Ops are considerably harder than CoD4/WaW/MW2.
#2 Posted by mattblitz (21 posts) -
@TheLegendofLuke said:

" Was 1st on an Ilomilo level the day it came out :D  And at one point I was top 15 on a Hydro Thunder Hurricane track.   Slipped a bit since then though.  "

Ilomilo is kinda cool and also kinda lame in that if you were the first to do the level correctly (meaning, no unnecessary steps), you'll forever have an unbeatable #1.  One many of the early-ish levels it's quite easy to see how to do it without taking any wrong steps, so eventually thousands and thousands will have the same score :(  I think at that point it should break ties by completion time, though I guess I can't complain about the fact that I'll always hold an Ilomilo #1 forever ;)
#3 Posted by mattblitz (21 posts) -
@agentboolen said:
" #1 in Super Meat Boy on the Xbox 360, but It seemed to be a bug, I finished a level in a not very impressive time and some how the game gave me 0 seconds for it, which put me right above everyone else lol.  Seems to be alot of players ranked with the 0 seconds level finish, but I don't have a clue how the hack happens, very strange.  I'm also kind of high in the Crazy Taxi Xbox 360 leaderboards, I love that game. "
 Indeed that was a glitch.  All 0.00 times eventually will be (or already have been) removed.
#4 Posted by mattblitz (21 posts) -
@Ventilaator said:
" Here's a weird one.  When they released Super Stardust Portable for the PSP, they had some networky issues which prevented anyone from accessing the leaderboards. I accidentally happened to try to submit my score RIGHT WHEN they fixed it, so there was a good few-hour chunk when I was #1 in the world "
Always nice when that happens, lol
#5 Posted by mattblitz (21 posts) -
@Abyssfull said:
" I used to be in the top 100 in the DMC4 leaderboards on DmD mode. Was a long ways a scrollin' to find many others close by who weren't Korean. "
 I know the feeling man.  On NeoGeo Battle Colosseum on XBLA, I was ranked #1 US but like..top 100 overall, or something like that.  Some games are just dominated by Asians :0
#6 Posted by mattblitz (21 posts) -

Cool guys :)  Keep it coming!  Relevant to topic: I'll be going for #1 on Zeit2 this Wednesday.

#7 Posted by mattblitz (21 posts) -
@PrivateIronTFU said:
" I inch my way up every level of Super Meat Boy. I'm like 4 on one level, and 28 on another. They need to fix the leaderboards, get rid of all the 0's.  "
 They do, periodically.  They haven't released the patch to fix permanently yet though.
#8 Posted by mattblitz (21 posts) -

Inspired by a thread here of the same name that I stumbled upon.  I'm really curious to see people's background in gaming and what people have spent time on for 'serious' gaming.  I don't want this to be looked at as an excuse to brag or something, so I'll opt to just observe I think :)
 
(This was the past thread, btw: 
http://www.giantbomb.com/leaderboard/92-30/whats-the-highest-youve-been-ranked-on-a-leaderboard/35-265747/)

#9 Posted by mattblitz (21 posts) -
@AvidAnarchist said:
" Is it just me or does it take a LOT more hits to kill someone? I'm not raging or anything, but I've gotten hit markers in Hardcore with a shotgun =.= It's a little too easy to spawn camp, I felt like I was playing Halo 3 all over again lol. I absolutely despise the zombie mode. Why should zombies get stronger and stronger? And paying to open a door? Wtf >.> I like how Red Dead Redemption set their zombie mode up. They don't get significantly stronger with each wave, they just grow in number. I enjoy playing it with my friends, it's just a little flawed, if you ask me. Oh, one more thing. Why are dogs super-heroes? If someone calls in dogs, it's game over. They basically touch you and you die. They couldn't take the time to add the MW2 thing where you can fight them off of you? I am disappoint. "
It takes an extra bullet in most cases (no stopping power) and the guns are slightly harder to control.  It's actually harder to spawn camp because you have a better ability to outshoot people.  You don't often (ever?) spawn with someone DIRECTLY pointing the sights on you, so you should really be able to shoot anyone who is trying to attack your base.  In fact, the spawns are a little messed up sometimes so that you'll actually spawn BEHIND the other team.  If anything it's harder to spawn camp because you never know if they're just going to pop up behind you.  If you're pushing hard, they're probably going to get flipped.  
 
@Zombie mode:  It is mostly them rising in numbers, though.  You're increasingly getting better weapons so it really shouldn't seem like they're getting way harder to kill.  Are you playing with a good team of friends, or are you just going in alone not knowing what to do?  There's a lot of strategy involved in it, so you're probably still learning.  Don't worry ^_^  Maybe it's not your thing, but I'm confident you won't see the individual zombies getting very strong once you're less overwhelmed by it.  You should have some pretty baller guns after it gets going and you unlock all the rooms.
 
@Dogs:  I can't deny that.  It's pretty tricky to get 11 kills (without killstreaks) so it's SOMEWHAT justified.  I agree it's pretty ridiculous to fight off dogs, but honestly no one should be getting 11 kills without dying.  It's not like MW2 where someone gets 5 kills, uses that streak to 7, uses that to 11, or something of that sort.  This is all gun kills, straight up running and killing.  Again, I have to say you might want to grab some friends when you play, or play FFA.  If you're playing FFA there's really no excuse to let someone get 11 kills and no deaths :P
#10 Posted by mattblitz (21 posts) -
@nintendoeats said:
" I love the single player...but here's the thing that bugs me about the multiplayer:  Its chaos. Absolute freaking chaos. I honestly see no way that you can get better at it when so much of it seems random. Its probably kind of realistic, but since its impossible to coordinate people like in a real battlefield the realism turns into monotony. I can see pro-CoD being fun because everyone on your team is working together, but random game joining feels lame.  People coordinate in CSS, I don't know why they can't do it in CoD. "
 
I HIGHLY recommend you grab some friends who know how to listen, or stick to stuff like FFA or low Wagers.  You really CAN get better a lot individually, but the frustration you feel without a team in a 6v6 situation will probably counteract your will to work on your skills.  You get so much better just having one other person to communicate and use teamwork with, trust me.  ^_^
 
And the only reason it's harder to coordinate people in this compared to CS is because this userbase is just naturally more of a casual, fun-loving group of teenagers.  Most people really don't care enough to slap a headset on or work together.  That's why I stick to FFA if I don't have any friends online.
  • 21 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3