golguin

I did and it was a pretty novel idea. I got all the way to the text adventure part and stopped.

@Terramagi said:

XCOM was a bad game, and only gets a pass because "holy shit it's a fucking TBS in the year 2012".

The game mechanics barely function, entire sections of the gameplay are irrelevant (who the fuck ever uses SHIVs or interception after the first month), and the aliens are literally static spawns that don't move, except when they decide to teleport from waypoint to waypoint, often into the middle of your squad.

Also, Syndicate shouldn't be on that list. It's not even the same genre.

I wouldn't call XCOM a bad game, it was okay, but it pales in comparison to other tactical/strategy RPGs out there. What I don't understand is people calling it's gameplay anything positive in light of other games in the genre like Final Fantasy Tactics, Devil Survivor, and Disgaea. My team wiped plenty of times on numerous occasions in those games. No one died on my play of XCOM. No one. I barely took damage in the game. All the cyberdisk hype on the bombcast fell flat since it only had the chance to act on 1 single occasion and it missed its shot. I killed every other cyberdisk before they got a chance to act. The chryssalid talk was also a joke. I only fought 3 zombies in the entire game and it was only that many because of the civilian kills they got on a terror mission before I had a chance to do anything.

XCOM was compelling in the beginning because I was still learning new abilities and figuring out the systems. Once I figured out overwatch snipers (2-3) with squad sight the game was essentially done.

@Andorski said:

@Oldirtybearon said:

@Andorski said:

My guess: The gunman killed someone and created a fire to destroy all the evidence. Firefighters show up and gunman kills them for fear of either seeing him or for putting out the fire before all the evidence is destroyed.

A little bit conspiracy theorist, but it does make sense given what we know about the situation so far.

Also, who the fuck shoots at firemen? I mean really. That's just counterproductive.

Unless you want the fire to keep going.

Puts on tin foil hat.

I feel like I've heard that scenario carried out successfully, but I don't know if it was from the news or a tv show. Fire is a great way to destroy the evidence of a murder.

@Inkerman said:

@TruthTellah said:

@Inkerman said:

Yes we have to talk about violence in video games. No we don't need to talk about it now. This is the point, when you have people levelling accusations of violent video games causing massacres on national television (which we all know is bullshit), the response is not "well maybe violence in video games is an issue", because you can believe that that is an admission of guilt.

And the likes of the NRA are going to jump on that. And why does that matter? Why should we care in our corner of the world? Because as soon as something like that gets any momentum there's a very strong chance that something like censorship might come in. If the headlines start saying 'video games cause violence' the Government is going to have to 'review' the self regulation in America has and we'll start hearing how Australia sets a good example with a Government run ratings system. We should be able to have these kinds of discussions without this kind of thing happening, but this is not fantasy land. As soon as you start seeing those headlines it's over, and basically admitting complicity in the massacre of children (which is what all this 'let's have a conversation' bullshit is doing) is the fast track to censorship.

No one needs to admit that games make killers, because that's nonsense. We can have conversations in the community without it somehow spiraling out of control. People said that talking -at all- about sexism in games would lead to games being censored, and that hasn't happened. We shouldn't let fear rule or limit us. If talking about violence in videogames can't be talked about now, then when? A week from now? A month? There will always be bad things happening in the world, and there will continue to be violence. And as long as there is a news media, they will probably sensationalize anything from videogames(as they do with everything else). We can't let such things deter us from talking seriously about videogames. Before the shooting, we were able to talk about violence in videogames, and after the shooting, we are still able to do so. You can abstain if you want to, but it's something worthwhile. I think videogames matter enough that a single event shouldn't make a videogame topic off-limits now or ever.

So why weren't we having this conversation a month ago? Sure there was some discussion after the latest 'shock' thing and in the wake of Far Cry 3, but nothing serious. But a massacre happens and the NRA blames video games, and suddenly we need to have this conversation. Look at this perspective from someone outside the gaming community, because like it or not, they are the people who will make decisions which will affect the gaming community. You have a violent massacre, followed by several people in authority linking video games to the violence (the fact that it's erroneous is irrelevant, you as a lay person don't know that), followed by the video game community 'reviewing' violence in games. Of course you're going to make the logical conclusion that video games cause violence.

Sure, we need to have this discussion. But we don't need to do it now, because if we do, the lay person (and the media) will see it as an admission of guilt. Sure there will always be violence, I'm not saying wait for world peace, I'm saying we wait until powerful political figures stop erroneously linking video games to a massacre. When the castle is under siege it is not time to start remodelling the walls. Now is the time to defend video games and our right to portray violence in video games, not reconsider it.

The reason the NRA blamed everything is because they want people talking about anything other than gun control. They don't want people talking about anything having to do with magazine clips, bullets, or guns. The argument is always "Don't talk about this now" because they know that people wont care later and the news will move onto something else. The conversation is all about gun control and the fact that an organization with 5 million members somehow can dictate what a country of 300 million+ people do is truly insane.

EDIT: His latest interview proves the tactic. Don't EVER agree that the problem has anything to do with guns.

I've been watching the Double Fine episodes from 2 Player Productions and I enjoyed the movie. It almost made me download the demo for Minecraft, but I have enough games that I need to S rank.

@TheShoebox said:

I voted Retake Mass Effect, but can someone explain to me what Doritosgate was all about exactly? I've read some stuff, but still can't seem to get a grasp on what it was exactly.

I asked about it some months ago. I'll try to find the response there, but it basically boiled down to people crying about nothing. Period.

EDIT: It was some BS about journalistic integrity because Doritos set up interviews with Keighly. Never mind the fact that he doesn't write reviews or that the only real world counterpart to this would be the White House correspondents' dinner though it barely compares. No one ever explained to me how it wasn't a joke to bring it up in light of real world practices that actually have an impact on the world.

here you go http://www.giantbomb.com/forums/general-discussion/30/huge-front-of-the-store-ad-for-black-ops-2-dew-and-doritos/566969/

Easily the ME3 ending. A lot of the things up there could be chalked up to "video game writer faux outrage". The ME3 ending outrage came from a supposedly minority of entitled whiners as described by a good number of video game websites, but it actually came from people who purchased the game and felt deceived, either rightly or wrongly, that they didn't get what they paid for. The controversy wasn't that people wanted the ending to be changed, it was the reaction by the video game press to those people.

That video actually made me remember my time with Journey and upped its rankings on my goty 2012 top ten list.

I thought I had my list order set, but upon further reflection I see now that this year I am putting more emphasis on emotional impact than gameplay systems. Games like Persona 3 Arena (3), Mass Effect 3 (5), and Journey (6) jumped a few spots on my list.

Did anyone else do the same? I feel myself remembering more the emotional impact than that sweet combo I strung together in something like Witcher 2.

http://www.giantbomb.com/profile/golguin/goty-2012/46-80831/

@Nodachie said:

I could give a long winded rant. I could lay my opinion out. Instead I'll say this:

I am looking forward to the day these people die. Then, and only then, we'll see true change in America.

Not a death wish, nor an open threat. Just my observations on the subject of social, cultural, change. Change seems to occur mostly on a generational change, in that the death of one allows the next to flourish.

It's like the issue with gay marriage. Change will happen when all the old conservatives die. It's the reason for the GOP loss this election. They have a demographics problem and their support is literally dying off.