Rohok's forum posts

#1 Posted by Rohok (554 posts) -

None of them. I want more multiplayer shit. The multiplayer is so tacked on and bare bones, and the maps sucks. There's 80 maps in singleplayer and they only gave us 5 (of the most uninteresting ones) in multiplayer. I want them to flesh it out- Give us sectopods and SHIVs and all of the singleplayer maps. I mean it's so terrible, that when I lost connection one day it popped up and told me the live service was down and I could only play system link games. Totally lazy. I mean when a game gets a 5/5 I'd expect every feature to be reviewed, but apparently every site ignored multiplayer completely- It didn't even factor into reviews apparently.

#2 Posted by Rohok (554 posts) -

@JacobG said:

I was skeptical at first, but I'm really liking what 343 is bringing to Halo 4. I too would agree that join-in-progress, and even killcams, are a welcome addition to Halo. I always hated waiting for my friends to end a game when there were open spots on their team.

How is killcam ever a welcome feature in any game? It's a feature for the dumbs.

#3 Posted by Rohok (554 posts) -

@Anupsis said:

Only if my mouse fucks up and I click on a bad spot for my guys to go to that is in the open. Makes me tempted to go xbox controller.

Happens with the thumbstick too. I play with the controller on PC so I deal with this often.

#4 Edited by Rohok (554 posts) -

The PC version is easily portable via laptop. The xbox 360 is large and bulky and you'd better hope there's a TV wherever you go with it. Also anti-aliasing. The xbox 360 doesn't have that, so enjoy the jaggies or the low-resolution.

#5 Posted by Rohok (554 posts) -

@Funkydupe said:

http://gamingbolt.com/stars-of-barathrum-open-world-space-game-from-valve-concept-art-leak

Rumors that Valve is working on a Freelancer/Privateeresque game. With Star Citizen and this: good times ahead.

I can either play a Freelancer/Privateeresque game, or a game made by the Freelancer/Privateer creator. Hmmm. :P

Hey folks, a great thread on the official forums with some compiled information. I encourage EVERYONE to go check it out and see if your questions can be answered: http://www.robertsspaceindustries.com/forums/topic/faqs-a-compilation-of-answers-from-the-devs-on-the-forums/

#6 Posted by Rohok (554 posts) -

@Morrow said:

@ArbitraryWater:

Thanks for the insight :)

I have a question though: Can you play XCOM in an RPG-like fashion? Meaning, if it turns out I should suck at strategy games (:D) can I replay missions to collect exp points and boost my units before attempting the harder missions? Or do I only have one chance to get the most out of a mission and then move on, like in Alpha Protocol?

One chance. But there's a lot of missions inbetween story missions. In fact, there's an infinite amount as long as you don't complete the story objects that trigger the next mission. So you can get the most of out as many random missions as you want, provided you keep your countries happy, before progressing to the next part of the story.

#7 Posted by Rohok (554 posts) -

@PixelPrinny said:

@Rohok said:

@StarvingGamer said:

@Rohok I am well aware of who he is and the lineage behind this game, but this isn't a matter of a project just being just a little ambitious. All the features he's talking about have been done before, but he's trying to do aall the features of all the games all at once. The biggest, best games of this generation with budgets out the wazoo barely offer a fraction of the features he claims his game will include. This isn't an old-school dev looking for some fan help to fund a modest passion project. This is a dev who hasn't done anything substantial for over a decade, trying to crowdfund a game more ambitious and feature-dense than projects with budgets in the hundreds of millions, in a niche/defunct genre with a content/pricing scheme that has seen limited success and is largely untested, especially at this proposed scale. Don't get me wrong, I'd love it for this game to succeed and be everything everyone hopes it to be and, if it does, you can bet I'll be there ready to throw down my money on day one, but backing it in its current form is a gamble, not an investment.

Those AAA games with large budgets are run by publishers that just want games released that look good on a spreadsheet. I mean you do see that, right? That's why they don't have hardcore, detailed features and all of these ambitious ideas. It's not safe, it's risky. Nobody got anywhere in life playing it safe. Not even those rich publishers with their hands in everyone's pockets. By remaining "neutral" and "waiting and seeing" what will become of the product in its current state is only assisting in seeing it fail. Maybe it is a gamble, but most kickstarter games are. Take a risk and gamble. This game deserves it, and although Chris Roberts took a break from making games he's still involved in the industry, and being a film producer I believe he can bring a few innovative ideas to the financial side of things. He'll know how to rally the kind of direct participation in development he needs to get it done in a short amount of time, as he described in many of his videos. I encourage you to do as much research as you can and reconsider your stance.

As melodramatic and cheesy as it sounds, this games needs you, and every other person on the fence about it. Jump off the fence and get in the action, because we're voting with our dollars. We need ambitious games. We need games that are creative and willing to jump into the fog of war and take a risk. There is no innovation in safety and taking it slow. I think the only reason you don't think it's possible because you're looking at AAA publisher games like EA and Ubisoft as the standard. They're taking it slow because as long as they do they won't lose money or fail. It's like being too afraid to ask a girl out because you're afraid of rejection. Chris Roberts has confidence in his ideas and games, knowing he's making a game that he wants to play, and loves to play. We just need to have confidence in this model. I mean I have plenty of confidence to give, because all the other confidence I used to spare for companies like Bethesda, Bioware, Firaxis, and The Creative Assembly is all gone. This playing it safe and tip-toing around the industry has to stop. Chris Roberts isn't out to make profit, he's out to make the game he wants to play, that's why this game is ambitious, and that's why it's big. But it can succeed.

YOU'RE EITHER WITH US OR AGAINST US! PACIFISTS ARE PROMOTING WAR THROUGH THEIR NON-AGGRESSION.

Have you considered a profession in the lucrative propaganda-writing business? Seriously, this whole ramble reads more like an advertisement than a personal opinion.

i may or may not be of the combine

maybe

#8 Edited by Rohok (554 posts) -

@StarvingGamer said:

@Rohok I am well aware of who he is and the lineage behind this game, but this isn't a matter of a project just being just a little ambitious. All the features he's talking about have been done before, but he's trying to do aall the features of all the games all at once. The biggest, best games of this generation with budgets out the wazoo barely offer a fraction of the features he claims his game will include. This isn't an old-school dev looking for some fan help to fund a modest passion project. This is a dev who hasn't done anything substantial for over a decade, trying to crowdfund a game more ambitious and feature-dense than projects with budgets in the hundreds of millions, in a niche/defunct genre with a content/pricing scheme that has seen limited success and is largely untested, especially at this proposed scale. Don't get me wrong, I'd love it for this game to succeed and be everything everyone hopes it to be and, if it does, you can bet I'll be there ready to throw down my money on day one, but backing it in its current form is a gamble, not an investment.

Those AAA games with large budgets are run by publishers that just want games released that look good on a spreadsheet. I mean you do see that, right? That's why they don't have hardcore, detailed features and all of these ambitious ideas. It's not safe, it's risky. Nobody got anywhere in life playing it safe. Not even those rich publishers with their hands in everyone's pockets. By remaining "neutral" and "waiting and seeing" what will become of the product in its current state is only assisting in seeing it fail. Maybe it is a gamble, but most kickstarter games are. Take a risk and gamble. This game deserves it, and although Chris Roberts took a break from making games he's still involved in the industry, and being a film producer I believe he can bring a few innovative ideas to the financial side of things. He'll know how to rally the kind of direct participation in development he needs to get it done in a short amount of time, as he described in many of his videos. I encourage you to do as much research as you can and reconsider your stance.

As melodramatic and cheesy as it sounds, this games needs you, and every other person on the fence about it. Jump off the fence and get in the action, because we're voting with our dollars. We need ambitious games. We need games that are creative and willing to jump into the fog of war and take a risk. There is no innovation in safety and taking it slow. I think the only reason you don't think it's possible because you're looking at AAA publisher games like EA and Ubisoft as the standard. They're taking it slow because as long as they do they won't lose money or fail. It's like being too afraid to ask a girl out because you're afraid of rejection. Chris Roberts has confidence in his ideas and games, knowing he's making a game that he wants to play, and loves to play. We just need to have confidence in this model. I mean I have plenty of confidence to give, because all the other confidence I used to spare for companies like Bethesda, Bioware, Firaxis, and The Creative Assembly is all gone. This playing it safe and tip-toing around the industry has to stop. Chris Roberts isn't out to make profit, he's out to make the game he wants to play, that's why this game is ambitious, and that's why it's big. But it can succeed.

I mean my entire argument doesn't matter if you're indifferent about the game to begin with, but if it's something you're actually excited for then it's something you should consider putting money toward. If, well, it's something you could care less for but would play if it was a success, ignore me, because I understand. But it's most certainly a game I've been looking for since I was a child.

#9 Posted by Rohok (554 posts) -

@Labman said:

Looks pretty cool, but I don't get why they didn't just go with Kickstarter. I would feel a lot more comfortable making a pledge through a trustworthy third party site like Kickstarter, rather than handing my money directly over to the developer. He may be the must honest guy in the world, but still I'm a little cautious about that stuff.

Well, I'd like to say you're 100% safe buying from Chris Roberts. He's a movie producer and a long-time game developer. Probably one of those oldest game developers in the industry, and definitely one of the most respected among the classic PC game community. While I can't give you 100% assurance because I don't know Chris Roberts personally, and nothing is 100% safe in life, I can tell you that if you use Paypal you WILL be secured because of Paypals protections that are in place. If they don't refund your money if it fails, or if it turns out to be a scam (which it most certainly is not), you can always hassle paypal to get your money back. I understand that money is tight for a lot of people and we have to make intelligent investments. Even if you've already pledged, I'm writing this up for anyone else who's got the same concerns. I'd like to try and convince everyone who's interested to drop some money down, but ultimately, I won't be able to. If you haven't pledged yet, then you can always just drop down a small 10 bucks to play it say. I'm personally dropping down 125 dollars, and I'd hope everyone would consider at least giving 30 (you get the game out of it!).

When you work hard for your money, 10 bucks is definitely a big deal, but so is this game. So I'd say the risk is worth it, and I'd hope everyone with concerns or worries will also take a leap of faith and pledge to this project as well. At the very least, you'll be out 10 dollars, at the most, you'll gain access to a game that could help in reviving tactical games, simulators, and hardcore PC games. While this game might seem ambitious, a lot of us feel it is entirely plausible, and even if I paid 60 dollars and got access to that one single mission portrayed in the trailer I'd still be happy.

TLDR: Use paypal, and don't be afraid to take the risk. Just tiptoe and contribute 10 if you're afraid, no reason to go all in.

#10 Edited by Rohok (554 posts) -

@StarvingGamer said:

It would be great if it happens but it seems way too overambitious a project for me to back. This is a pie-in-the-sky level of dreaming that somehow manages to eclipse Molyneux.

Just about everything he says he's going to do has either been shown in the video, or done in another game. This is Chris Roberts. He practically invented the Space Sim genre, what he says he's going to do he'll do, and he'll do it well, provided he gets the funding for it. I mean, by not backing it, you're contributing to the likelihood of it not obtaining its goal, thus solidifying the theory that it's overambitious, lol. Just contribute 10 dollars and see where it goes. Even if we just get the squadron 42 game, what's to lose? He's already shown us great gameplay, and a singleplayer experience with a good coop mode allowing friends to fly on your wing would be worth it, and even if he doesn't meet the goal, your cash will be refunded. There's nothing to lose.

I mean, do you all just think this is some random guy off the street...?

It's Chris Roberts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Roberts_(game_developer)