RedneckedCrake's forum posts

#1 Posted by RedneckedCrake (311 posts) -

@RedRoach said:

SPOILERS

My biggest disappointment with it is that at one point, you become a triad leader. But you never feel like it, you should be making decisions, maybe have stuff like the Godfather games did. It was like you skyrocketed to the top and stayed there for the rest of the game. The GTA stories do a better job of "rags to riches" story. I just feel like your rise to the top could've been done better and once you take Winstons place you actually feel like a triad leader. They have that mission "the new boss" or whatever where you replace Winston, make one decision, and then don't really see or do anything with those guys again. I want to feel like I run the streets, like Winston did.

Other then that, I really loved the game.

I actually agree with this. This is the main problem I had with the game, although the rest of it was so well done that it was a small matter.

As far as gameplay and the overall fun factor goes, I liked Sleeping Dogs a lot more than GTA. The driving, combat, and shooting is a lot smoother, and then you have the free running sequences where you're chasing some guy down and jumping up and over shit, which I really enjoyed.

The strength of the plot between the GTA series in general and Sleeping Dogs is a toss up for me. GTA brings something new to the table each time, and is just BIGGER overall than Sleeping Dogs, which I think kind of gives it the edge.

But yeah, as much fun as it is to compare the two, I love both for what they bring to the table.

#2 Posted by RedneckedCrake (311 posts) -

@Crypt135 said:

@ajamafalous said:

You should play DA:O and then throw DA2 away.
#3 Posted by RedneckedCrake (311 posts) -

Couldn't stand the Stormcloaks. Found out pretty soon in the game how racist the entire organization generally is and was immediately turned off.

Then again you've also got the Imperials restricting a lot of the Nord freedoms, like worshipping Talos. If you ask me though, I'd rather risk a semi-strict rule under the Imperials than a possible genocide of races that aren't Nord.

#4 Posted by RedneckedCrake (311 posts) -

@Evikull said:

Patches are very imporant. They fix a game which might normally have been left in a bad state.

DLC seems to exist purely to piss people off, a job which it is doing excellently.

Ok, in fairness, not all DLC is bad. Think expansion packs and the like. Stuff like what Rockstar put out, such as Episodes from Liberty City. I'm alright with that. When DLC can expand on a game and really add to it, it's great.

But DLC for stuff that was removed from the game? Or even worse, content that is still on the god damn disc that I have to buy to unlock? This I don't understand. I don't get half way through a movie and then see a sign pop up telling me to buy the next scene. Then there's the problem of over pricing which is fairly evident in a lot of DLC.

DLC could have been great, and have had many glimmers of brilliance, but have ultimately failed and have largely left me unimpressed

Totally agree with everything this man says.

I've only had a few legitimately good DLC experiences. GTA IV, Oblivion, Red Dead Redemption, and Mass Effect 2 are examples of how DLC should be done and how it should be released. DLC gets such a bad rep because you always have those shitbag developers that charge you like 15 bucks for three new maps in multiplayer (looking at you, CoD). That really rubs people the wrong way and makes all DLC look bad.

I think a dev should wait a little while. Maybe have an outline of the DLC they want to release before they release the game, and then if the game sells well and people are crying for more, work on that shit, finish it up and release it.

#5 Posted by RedneckedCrake (311 posts) -

I don't think coffee has much impact on skill, only if you drink absolutely ridiculous amounts of it and can't even hold the controller straight, which I imagine would result in you being close to heart attack anyway.

Now I've never played video games while all hyped up on caffeine...but I have played many times under the influence of various drugs...and that's definitely not easy.

#6 Posted by RedneckedCrake (311 posts) -

From a graphics and gameplay standpoint, it's not really that great. It's just the sheer amount of things you can do in it, and all the different quests you can do that make it such an interesting game. I recommend it if you like character building too, because there's a lot of combinations you can do with the different skills. I've built like three different characters that have all worked out well for me. I really loved that aspect of it because you can essentially play the game any way you want.

Also it's cheap as hell now, so I would highly recommend picking it up and at least playing through most of it before you start on Skyrim.

#7 Posted by RedneckedCrake (311 posts) -

Getting kicked off the helicopter at the end. Then, once I managed to deck that fucker in the face and throw him out, getting shot by the dude in the passenger seat.

#8 Edited by RedneckedCrake (311 posts) -

@Barrock said:

Just beat it. Was I the only one that thought Price died as well? He took one last puff and faded away?

I thought about that as well but I don't think he was badly wounded enough to die. I can't remember how many times he was shot or if he was stabbed at all. I just wonder what the police will do when they find him there. I mean, he's wanted by just about everyone dead or alive. He took down Makarov which is no doubt a favor to everyone but to the outside world, he basically murdered America's top general.

#9 Posted by RedneckedCrake (311 posts) -

So I just finished the campaign for MW3 on Veteran mode. Took me a bit over ten hours. I hear you can beat the campaign on normal in about 5-6 hours, so it's safe to say that Veteran definitely adds length to the game, no doubt from the massive amount of times I died. Not that anyone who's ever beaten a CoD game on Veteran doesn't know that already. It's really quite a bitch.

Now...one thing CoD is known for is the fast pacing in the campaigns. The constant moving and shooting that often has to be done in order to get from one level to the next and progress through the story. This campaign is no different. It's just as explosive as the others, if not more so. Vehicles crash, explosions go off all around you, and hordes of enemies swarm you and your allies. I think the main difference between MW3 and the other games in the series is that the story in this game will keep you engaged enough that you won't care about the pacing. You just want to finish the game and find out what happens to Soap, Price, and the respective characters you play as.

Which leads me to my first point about how I was impressed by Modern Warfare 3. Over the course of the MW series (excluding Black Ops and WaW of course) they've been building the two main characters, Soap and Price, into characters the player actually cares about, something that is kind of rare in modern shooters nowadays. It's cool as you're playing to see how the relationship between the two heroes has changed over the course of the games. Soap going from Price's underling to his partner and equal. Since you play as a different character that fights side by side with both of them on most of the missions in this game, you get to see how the two of them interact and I think that adds some depth to their characters. As I played, it was as if I could feel the will in both of them to keep each other alive, so...(MASSIVE SPOILER) when Soap dies, you feel pain just as Captain Price does.

Now, some gamers are no strangers to deep, meaningful characters. Anyone who's played a story-driven RPG is probably saying "wow Crake, you think Soap and Price are DEEP characters?" Compared to the better story-driven games out there, CoD definitely doesn't have deep characters. It's just, I was surprised at how much I cared for them in a game that people claim only focuses on the multiplayer component.

I think it's a shame how many people no doubt skip out on the single player in this game and go straight to the multiplayer, oftentimes not even touching the campaign. I think they're missing out on a great, engaging story with characters that you'll never forget. I also found it cool how they kind of give a tribute to past games with certain dialogue and some of the missions. Like the classic stealth mission. In the first game in the series, it was Price and Macmillan, then Soap and Price in MW2, and then Yuri and Soap in MW3. It's a nice touch that brought a nostalgic feeling for me.

Finally, I'd like to touch on the ending. Man, what a perfect ending to this game. Captain Price gets revenge for all his dead friends (Soap, Gaz, Ghost, all the SAS troopers), Yuri redeems himself for his past misdeeds by saving Price's life, and the world is saved by Makarov and his lunacy at last. And I couldn't even describe the feeling of awesomeness that came over me when you see Makarov's body swinging there, and a wounded Captain Price, who you just used to kick ass, sits down in his own blood and lights a cigar.

I'm not a huge shooter fan by any means, and I do think the rage and hysteria over MW3's multiplayer is a little ridiculous (not that I won't be playing it myself), but all I have to say is: Infinity Ward, Bravo.

#10 Posted by RedneckedCrake (311 posts) -

I'd like there to be a lot of random happenings in Skyrim. Like you mentioned that creepy village in Oblivion that was performing the rituals underground. Having something similiar to that would be really cool. A village or castle you may stumble upon in the middle of nowhere and you have to kind of snoop around to find out what the place is all about. Places like that and random occurences around the map would definitely add to the experience.

I'd like some downright scary environments. I find being afraid in games immerses you a lot more than a lot of other emotions games make you feel.