What Game Are You Playing Right Now?

RVCA · 07-24-2010, 02:12 PM

yes, they are. If you say that, you haven't played Mario 64 or Mario Sunshine. I'm not looking for Fallout 3 or Oblivion type worlds, just something that isn't a floating head on a world map with lines connecting each galaxy to one another.

debaserr · 07-24-2010, 02:17 PM

i have played both, and exploration was a small facet. maybe you should play red dead redemption or gta or something.

RVCA · 07-24-2010, 02:19 PM

nah, I love Mario games, but I'm just not impressed with Galaxy 2

boo boo · 07-24-2010, 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RVCA

@MW2: Trust me, I have been in SO many games where the opposing teams gets a lucky AC130 from a carepackage and wins because of it. Or, games where the opposing team has 3 or 4 people doing nothing but noob tubing. Or, games where the opposing team uses nothing but UMPs and ACRs. Or games where they're all camping in corners with heart beat sensors. Or games where they're all MLC knifing. If these kids who think they're good at MW2 hop into Counterstrike or even Halo, they get murdered, because those games don't have all these unbalanced, unfair, and frankly plain random events.

So you're telling me it's a terrible game simply because of how people choose to abuse it?

I played online and people weren't like this at all, everytime I died it was usually the result of a planned and well executed kill. Yeah people do the noob tubing but these people don't last long when up against skilled players. Overall it's less fun to noob tube and camp and enough people actually play the game for fun. That's why I played it and wouldn't you know, I had fun because I was playing with other people who were having fun.

If some dumbass abuses it and ruins it for everyone, that's his fault and not the programmers'. They put a lot of effort into making this game and it's rather insulting to completely write off the effort that went into it just because you're incapable of finding someone to play matches with that isn't retarded.

Quote:

@Mario: I guess my main problem wasn't really that it's so linear, it's that the levels STINK. Nearly every single level involves landing on a slightly large asteroid, and then finding the star launcher onto the next asteroid, and then launching onto the next asteroid, etc. It's as if Nintendo gets a free pass as far as level design goes.
"Hey guys, I can't think of any ways to expand or improve the current portion of this level."
"So just launch Mario onto another floating rock and start from scratch"

This is f*cking stupid, you are making ridiculous simplifications about a game that has a lot more depth and variety than that. You're simplying describing the basic premise of the game. You can apply this kind of "criticism" to every kind of game.

"Platformers suck all you do is go from left to right jumping on stuff"

"First Person Shooters suck all you do is shoot sh*t"

"RPGs suck all you do is buy stuff, fight turn based battles and level up and start over"

"Racing games suck all you do is race"

Please stop.

Quote:

I just miss Delfino Plaza and the Peach's Castle, where the world map itself was grounds for exploration. Then you could pick a level to enter and do an entirely new set of exploration while the level dynamically changed as you acquired more stars.

I admit that I wish the overworld in Galaxy was bigger and more explorable. But the level design is without a doubt some of the best I've ever seen in a 3D platformer and if Galaxy 2 continues the same formula I won't be disappointed.

Quote:

I don't understand why Sunshine 2 has an aggregate score of 96 (or whatever) on Metacritic; it honestly feels sloppy and unimaginative, especially since it's almost a direct replica, in quite a lot of ways, of the previous game. It even has the same "cleaning robot" minigame where you have to destroy X amount of boxes in X seconds.

Sunshine 2?

Actually merging the Gameplay of Galaxy and Sunshine is a great concept. If it's really a sequel to BOTH of those games then that's even better.

Quote:

Maybe I just need to play it more.

I still need a copy so you could just give me yours if you don't want it.

RVCA · 07-24-2010, 04:27 PM

Blah, I meant galaxy 2. I guess it just boils down to my personal preference. If this were "This album > that album"...

64 > Sunshine >>> Galaxy > Galaxy 2

debaserr · 07-24-2010, 04:50 PM

64 is so dated though. much rather play some galaxy/sunshine.

Freebase Dali · 07-24-2010, 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boo boo

So you're telling me it's a terrible game simply because of how people choose to abuse it?

I played online and people weren't like this at all, everytime I died it was usually the result of a planned and well executed kill. Yeah people do the noob tubing but these people don't last long when up against skilled players. Overall it's less fun to noob tube and camp and enough people actually play the game for fun. That's why I played it and wouldn't you know, I had fun because I was playing with other people who were having fun.

If some dumbass abuses it and ruins it for everyone, that's his fault and not the programmers'. They put a lot of effort into making this game and it's rather insulting to completely write off the effort that went into it just because you're incapable of finding someone to play matches with that isn't retarded.

When you're playing online, the game IS the people playing it. The developers might not have control of your gaming style, but what you're forgetting is that the developers have the control of content and ultimately the balance of the weapons in the game. If some weapons need to be nerfed so that everyone and their grandmothers don't spam certain guns because it's the most powerful in ALL situations and scenarios, then that's something the developers are expected to do if the majority of the people playing the game call for it.
The problem with MW2 and other similar games is that I don't think enough people are calling for it because it's easier to just join the dark-side to make it an even playing field by doing the same exact thing. That usually results in a very confined type of gameplay that, if you expect to win, you must disregard inferior weapons and spam the overkill weapons. At that point, there isn't even a reason to have any other weapons in the game other than few all-powerful weapons that everyone uses. It destroys the ability to choose situational tools in a tactical way, and detracts from the gameplay if you're in a squad and trying to complete an objective. The fun isn't in killing as many people as possible, and it's not in completing as many objectives as possible. The real fun is working as a team and having to THINK about what you do and use experience and the tools at your disposal to achieve the objective in a well-organized and effective way.
At least, most of the people who have complaints about unbalanced weapons and spammy gameplay think that way. I understand that people may have different definitions of what's fun in FPS, but it's difficult to play your style if someone is making it impossible. The main cause of this happens to be unbalanced weapons and inadequate developer foresight.

What I like most about Bad Company 2 is that buildings are destructible. You can see a camper sniping as many people as he can, completely ignoring any kind of objective defense... simply arbitrarily racking up kills, sitting behind a window in a top floor of a building... and with something as simple as a grenade launcher attachment, you can take out the wall he's behind with one shell and kill him. That's balance. It gives you, as a player, the chance to defend yourself while you're going for your team's objective, and it also changes the dynamic of camping. I can't speak for how fun it is to just sit in one spot and shoot random people in the head simply to achieve a high Kill/Death ratio to show off in the gaming forums, but at least if a person wants to do that, they'll have to actually defend themselves and put a little thought into it.

Oh, and you'd be surprised at what's actually planned and well executed kills. You have to remember that some of these people have been playing the maps for a long time and know all the choke points and best places to camp. You may just blindly run into their view and conveniently place yourself at the tip of their front-sight post like all the other noobs do, and you're dead before you even know what happened.
That's not strategy unless you're defending an objective. And I've heard enough complaints from the MW2 community to know that's usually not the case.

RVCA · 07-24-2010, 06:19 PM

Thank you for typing out what I was too lazy to

boo boo · 07-24-2010, 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freebase Dali

When you're playing online, the game IS the people playing it. The developers might not have control of your gaming style, but what you're forgetting is that the developers have the control of content and ultimately the balance of the weapons in the game. If some weapons need to be nerfed so that everyone and their grandmothers don't spam certain guns because it's the most powerful in ALL situations and scenarios, then that's something the developers are expected to do if the majority of the people playing the game call for it.
The problem with MW2 and other similar games is that I don't think enough people are calling for it because it's easier to just join the dark-side to make it an even playing field by doing the same exact thing. That usually results in a very confined type of gameplay that, if you expect to win, you must disregard inferior weapons and spam the overkill weapons. At that point, there isn't even a reason to have any other weapons in the game other than few all-powerful weapons that everyone uses. It destroys the ability to choose situational tools in a tactical way, and detracts from the gameplay if you're in a squad and trying to complete an objective. The fun isn't in killing as many people as possible, and it's not in completing as many objectives as possible. The real fun is working as a team and having to THINK about what you do and use experience and the tools at your disposal to achieve the objective in a well-organized and effective way.
At least, most of the people who have complaints about unbalanced weapons and spammy gameplay think that way. I understand that people may have different definitions of what's fun in FPS, but it's difficult to play your style if someone is making it impossible. The main cause of this happens to be unbalanced weapons and inadequate developer foresight.

What I like most about Bad Company 2 is that buildings are destructible. You can see a camper sniping as many people as he can, completely ignoring any kind of objective defense... simply arbitrarily racking up kills, sitting behind a window in a top floor of a building... and with something as simple as a grenade launcher attachment, you can take out the wall he's behind with one shell and kill him. That's balance. It gives you, as a player, the chance to defend yourself while you're going for your team's objective, and it also changes the dynamic of camping. I can't speak for how fun it is to just sit in one spot and shoot random people in the head simply to achieve a high Kill/Death ratio to show off in the gaming forums, but at least if a person wants to do that, they'll have to actually defend themselves and put a little thought into it.

Oh, and you'd be surprised at what's actually planned and well executed kills. You have to remember that some of these people have been playing the maps for a long time and know all the choke points and best places to camp. You may just blindly run into their view and conveniently place yourself at the tip of their front-sight post like all the other noobs do, and you're dead before you even know what happened.
That's not strategy unless you're defending an objective. And I've heard enough complaints from the MW2 community to know that's usually not the case.

Dude there were people pulling off multple kills using only a f*cking knife, and not simply through camping. I think it's easy to find people who are actually good at the game.

Is the game chaotic? But for multiplayer games I prefer chaos to ridiculously strict and controlled environments, call me a sadist.

While your criticisms have validity I don't think it makes it a terrible game. Overall the quality of the gameplay depends on how you cooperate with the other players and if you manage to set up team battles with as few dirty players as possible then there will be balance. This may require extra effort and regulation than the game you prefer, but it's not impossible and I still think it's unfair to dismiss the game for how some people choose to abuse it. It's pretty much impossible for a game not to be abused in some way.

There is no fun in abusing, but I think enough fans of the game realise that.

boo boo · 07-24-2010, 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RVCA

Blah, I meant galaxy 2. I guess it just boils down to my personal preference. If this were "This album > that album"...

64 > Sunshine >>> Galaxy > Galaxy 2

Galaxy > 64 > Sunshine

Love all three though.

07-24-2010, 02:17 PM	#1962 (permalink)
debaserr eat the masters Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 5,467	i have played both, and exploration was a small facet. maybe you should play red dead redemption or gta or something. __________________ Last.FM

07-24-2010, 04:50 PM	#1966 (permalink)
debaserr eat the masters Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 5,467	64 is so dated though. much rather play some galaxy/sunshine. __________________ Last.FM

07-24-2010, 02:12 PM	#1961 (permalink)
RVCA （￣ー￣） Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 3,270	yes, they are. If you say that, you haven't played Mario 64 or Mario Sunshine. I'm not looking for Fallout 3 or Oblivion type worlds, just something that isn't a floating head on a world map with lines connecting each galaxy to one another.

07-24-2010, 02:19 PM	#1963 (permalink)
RVCA （￣ー￣） Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 3,270	nah, I love Mario games, but I'm just not impressed with Galaxy 2

07-24-2010, 04:27 PM	#1965 (permalink)
RVCA （￣ー￣） Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 3,270	Blah, I meant galaxy 2. I guess it just boils down to my personal preference. If this were "This album > that album"... 64 > Sunshine >>> Galaxy > Galaxy 2

07-24-2010, 06:19 PM	#1968 (permalink)
RVCA （￣ー￣） Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 3,270	Thank you for typing out what I was too lazy to