WhiteForestParkRangr's forum posts

Avatar image for whiteforestparkrangr
#1 Posted by WhiteForestParkRangr (87 posts) -

I need help with a game that had a demo ten years ago.

It's a real-time strategy game with no bases and set in a fantasy world. From the two levels that were on the demo, you start out units and might level up. I think one of the units had an ability that let him set bombs or some sort of explosives. One of the levels was a defensive mission were you had to survive as long as possible until the time ran out.

I hope you can help me find this game.

Off the top of my head, Myth : The Fallen Lords or Myth II : Soulblighter? Maybe even the 3rd game, but we don't talk about that one. There were a few clones/similar titles around that time as well that I wouldn't be able to recall without further research.

Some gameplay:

Loading Video...

Avatar image for whiteforestparkrangr
#2 Posted by WhiteForestParkRangr (87 posts) -

Stanley Kubrick.

Avatar image for whiteforestparkrangr
#3 Edited by WhiteForestParkRangr (87 posts) -

I recommend any of the various (and very affordable at this point) homebrew cards floating around out there for your DS. Might run you about 10-15 dollars for your needs (GB/GBC emulation). There is an excellent Gameboy emulator for the DS called Gameyob that runs perfectly and has a host of customization/personalization options.

Avatar image for whiteforestparkrangr
#4 Edited by WhiteForestParkRangr (87 posts) -

Don't forget Starsiege:Tribes and Enemy Territory as some of the earliest multiplayer FPS series that organically fostered/rewarded the play of varying roles; making highly specialized non-lethal contributions every bit as tangible as the scout serving up blue plate specials and flag running.

Overwatch is far from unique in its particulars (and in some small respects I'd actually say inferior to the design philosophy behind Valve's TF2). Like with most Blizzard games, it's how they blended already well-established conventions into a sum far greater than its individual parts that makes it special.

Avatar image for whiteforestparkrangr
#5 Posted by WhiteForestParkRangr (87 posts) -

@mbdoeden: Yeah, I haven't played it yet (downloading right now), seen a fair amount of second-hand footage. From what I've seen thus far, it seems much more reminiscent of the industrial tone of Quake (sloshed together with the ambient tracks of Doom 64) than classic Doom.

I could be talking out my ass though as far as which style actually predominates, but I shall soon find out!

Avatar image for whiteforestparkrangr
#6 Edited by WhiteForestParkRangr (87 posts) -

Having served at a function hall hosting many events of a similar or much larger magnitude (some pretty glitzy weddings, comedy shows, etc.), I think bow-tie pasta with a simple red sauce (and the option of some shredded or grated parmesan) is pretty hard to mess up, assuming one large pot, versus flimsier fair like spaghetti which can be easily overcooked, unevenly cooked, or over-handled in such large quantities.

Very little effort, maximum visual impact, and just the right level of class for your dollar.

Avatar image for whiteforestparkrangr
#7 Edited by WhiteForestParkRangr (87 posts) -

@humanity said:

@whiteforestparkrangr: Battlefield 1942 had a unique feeling to it. I agree some of it was janky but a lot of those vehicles had solid physics behind them. Piloting a plane took actual skill. Being able to do strafing runs and then land on the aircraft carrier to get more ammo was great. While it had some wonkyness from time to time I think it definitely was a very solid multiplayer experience. Tribes was comparable in scope but those maps were vast and empty specifically so that skiing was worth a damn. In comparison the 1942 maps felt better because they weren't huge skating rinks - although admittedly there weren't all that many great maps and people continued playing on Wake Island for a long time. Wake, Karkand 24hr rotation pretty much.

Yeah, I'm not at all saying it was a bad game or not a novel experience. Just very, very rough around the edges. The merits of the experience were numerous enough to overlook its flaws and the aerial stuff was totally serviceable for a non-sim type game. It had fun factor in spades which made for a lot of hilarious antics.

For vehicles specifically though, I just think Halo really set a new FPS standard in terms of having this really organic feel with the physics interactions; vehicles having suspension and actually gripping terrain (or losing grip and flipping), seamless boarding/exiting transitions and analog player aiming/steering, being balanced so that the physics themselves limited vehicles from becoming too overpowered compared to on-foot, etc. Stuff like that.

Whereas before that (and some time after for many games) most vehicles in FPS games tended to have a very stiff, digital feel to them and there seemed to be this jarring disconnect of gameplay experience between on-foot and vehicle (each part feeling almost like two separate games) stuff that, in Halo, felt more like one cohesive whole. For me it's one of those things that's kinda hard to explain but your brain intuitively knows the difference.

And I'll leave at that I guess because this is kinda veering wildly off topic, heh!

Avatar image for whiteforestparkrangr
#8 Edited by WhiteForestParkRangr (87 posts) -

@billymaysrip said:

Also, one's a PC game, while one was a 60 fps console smash hit. BF2 sold somewhere over 2 million copies, while Modern Warfare sold close to 16 million.

Of course people are going to jump on the bandwagon when someone makes a game that sells 13 million units over a two year period.

If we're getting really picky here, Counter-Strike was the first big "modern" shooter...

Rainbow Six.

@humanity said:

Probably the same reason why Halo gets all the recognition for vehicles in shooters when Battlefield 1942 did it so much better.

Gotta say I totally disagree.1942 was not a solid game at all; it was a janky, buggy, laggy mess. It was still a lot of fun because of its seemingly unprecedented scope and the sheer chaos of it all (Starsiege: Tribes did it first and way better but had no recognition and even the vehicles in that game had major issues), but in no way was it a seamless, precision experience like Halo was. The only vehicles which didn't feel like wooden toy cars were the airplanes, and that's only because they were airborne.

DICE today is still known for shipping buggy, unpolished products and they've done nothing but greatly improve since those early halcyon days.

Avatar image for whiteforestparkrangr
#9 Edited by WhiteForestParkRangr (87 posts) -

I honestly think a lot of the derision arises out of ignorance of what itches gaming (as we know it) scratches in the first place.

Games and "play" in the most general sense are important mammalian behaviors that predate humanity itself, and modern video-gaming is just the latest technological manifestation of it. Almost everyone enjoys games of some kind of another and I think they'd more accept this specific brand of it, if made to understand (and to not necessarily like) it from that simple common framework that we as humans all share.

Avatar image for whiteforestparkrangr
#10 Posted by WhiteForestParkRangr (87 posts) -

@spaceinsomniac: That Pew survey generically asks about speech that is "offensive to minorities," which is pretty vague, and you'll notice that the people among whom there is greatest support for limiting such offensive speech are minorities themselves. That kinda makes a whole lot of sense because it's really easy to take an absolutist stance in favor of allowing speech that is offensive to minorities when you know you won't be subjected to it. Also, how is 'offensive' defined in this poll? It isn't, really.

An older person's concept of offensive speech might be the 'n' word or a tasteless joke at the expense of gay people or Chinese people or whomever else. A younger person's concept of offensive speech might be anonymous death and rape threats or a flood of unsolicited neo-Nazi memes and other harassment being sent their way because they accidentally said or did something that made channers angry. What kind of authority are we talking about ceding to government in order to limit offensive speech? We don't know because the survey is extremely superficial.

Think about the extent to which, for young people, discourse has increasingly moved online, which is great on the one hand because now anybody-- even people from historically marginalized communities-- can share their experiences without having to seek permission from old establishment gatekeepers, but is terrible on the other hand because it's an equally great tool for reactionary psychos of all kinds to dogpile, harass and intimidate people anonymously and with impunity.There's a lack of accountability to online interactions that has created problems that didn't exist when people had to have their identity out there in order to go out and promote their retrograde, hateful invective. I think the vast majority of people can agree that there is a problem. I'd say it's very reasonable to say that the appropriate solution is not for government to create new laws limiting public speech, even offensive speech targeted at minorities. However, it's also undeniable that existing laws prohibiting terroristic threats, incitement to violence, conspiracy to commit crimes against minorities, and harassment are not currently being enforced in an effective or satisfactory way. So, is it necessarily crazy and censorious to respond approvingly to the generic assertion that government has a role to play in policing this kind of speech that is designed to cause harm?

That survey result only shows a tiny fragment of a much, much bigger picture. It's only useful on its own in that it can be used to support unsophisticated scaremongering about "PC culture," which has always been and continues to be barely more than panicked whining from people who are used to saying and doing whatever they want while being shielded from any real criticism.

Just want to make sure I'm reading this right, you're asking if what amounts to censorship is necessarily censorious?