- Mar 6, 2008
Hitler wasn't a genius. He surrounded himself with smart people, yes, but he, himself. Not so much. He was militarily incompetent and whenever he was directly involved in the operational level of combat things went sideways fast.madbird-valiant said:Possibly in the same way that Hitler was a genius, I'll grant you that.Starke said:The man is a genius though, and quite possibly certifiable.madbird-valiant said:Molyneux
What the Nazis got right, militarily, in 1937: they were the best trained, most disciplined, and best equipped force in Europe with some incredibly brilliant minds in their upper echelons. So, I say this without irony, thank fucking god Hitler was incompetent.
In order to prevent a military coup he feared, he put his command staff in direct competition with one another. He opposed the introduction of assault rifles, instead favoring the Walther MP SMGs. Because we all know how fantastic 9x19 is on the battlefield instead of 7.62.[footnote]Yes, the early assault rifles are technically battle rifles today, I know.[/footnote] He shut down their nuclear program. Oh, yes, and he invaded Russia. A feat that's gone well for precisely no one since the Vikings.
Where as, instead, the goddamn Ukrainians told you to do this to get a good ending. They just didn't turn the arrow on automatically.madbird-valiant said:Yeah, you have to fling it on Cybil while she's going all shadowdarknessy. No hints to do so. Goddamn Japanese.Starke said:As I recall Silent Hill pulls about 3 of these. Another one that comes to mind is some random crap you have to syphen out of a gas tank. You have to use it at the right time or or you'll miss out on the best ending, and you only have one shot to make it work.
But, no, that was something different. STALKER tells you what you need to do to get the best ending, it just doesn't move the quest marker to follow until you tell it to.
Yeah, see the point of Two Worlds is, it doesn't really have limits. Same with Gothic/Risen. It also never really says, "here's all the features of the game," instead it says "go out there, experiment, and die a lot, we'll be waiting." I much prefer the latter because it offers more perceptual freedom.madbird-valiant said:The thing I think I didn't like most about Two Worlds was how it was so... open. I know that's a stupid thing to complain about, but if you take Oblivion to be Two Worlds' nemesis, then Oblivion gives you an objective, tells you how important this objective is in relation to the story and such, a clear location for that objective, and a nice big map showing you how to get there. Two Worlds gives you an objective, vaguely points you in the right direction, and then leaves you to twist in the wind. I like my games to be open, just within some boundaries.Starke said:Yeah, and that's a different issue entirely, does a game appeal to you? For me Two Worlds went from being passable to really addictive when I realized I could stack items, but that was just me... the more I played it the more undocumented features I found, and the more fun I had screwing around and seeing what happened.
Well, that certainly explains the general hatred of Carth/Kaiden, and Ashley, and Silk Fox, and Dawn Star, Sky, Aribeth, Jack (Silk Fox after a horrible cloning experiment and a stop at Hot Topic, or Nobody Loves Me if you're an SR fan), Miranda (and her sausage boob), Kelly, Thane, Alistair, Morgan, Ogrin, Wynn, Desher, Imoen, Jahera, Juhani, Liara, Liliana, Mission, Zalbaar (and his Listerine gargling voiceover), Samara (Thane after a sex change gone horribly wrong), Zaeed, Logain (the most predictable villain ever, and a horrible attempt to clone Canderous. Canderous didn't take to kindly to that it would seem), Shale (an attempt to clone HK47 that resulted in... well... Steve from accounting), and Zevron (the mobile cheese factory) all have rather healthy hatedoms out there. Oh... right, and Bastila... And Male Shepard (football captain from Columbus, OH)...madbird-valiant said:Despite this I manage to genuinely feel for the characters each and every time. Well, except for KOTOR, Bastila was such a plank of wood. I lend myself to the theory that BioWare have discovered the perfect character archetypes that people enjoy most.Starke said:And Neverwinter Nights, and Jade Empire, and even to an extent Mass Effect and Mass Effect 2, for me. The feel of the games starts to bleed together over time. A lot of it's because it's the same characters in the same situations over and over again.
This is not a hallmark of good writing.
Far Cry 2? From Crytek? That is a mistake. Crytek made Far Cry, Crysis, and now Crysis 2, they did not make Far Cry 2. Far Cry 2 was Ubisoft Montreal. The same people who've made the Splinter Cell games, Assassin's Creed 1 & 2, and so on.madbird-valiant said:Philosophy? From Crytek? That wasn't an accident? I wouldn't be so sure.Starke said:Okay, two things.madbird-valiant said:Boring as all hell, you mean? Because if so, then it's hardly a good idea to make a game out of it, surely. Mercenaries 2 was more entertaining than this, and Mercenaries 2 was utter brine.
One: Far Cry 2 may be boring, that doesn't mean there isn't more going on than you perceived. This is precisely the kind of content I'm trained to look for, and Far Cry 2 has it in spades. It's simply too blatant to be an accident.
Yeah, see, we're coming at this from different angels. You're talking about games that have unpleasant twists in the narrative. I'm talking about, on a larger scope, we limit ourselves to one flavor of gameplay. We want the sickly sweet of gleeful abandon. What we don't want is the larger range of ennui available. I can see why, but, it is genuinely our loss.madbird-valiant said:I wouldn't be the proud semi-otaku I was if I hadn't played quite a few "visual novels" in my time (lets face it, they're hentai games for the most part), and School Days was possibly the most depressing experience of my life. Not to mention the anime it spawned, which made me want to attack a hail of bullets with my face.Starke said:Two: Roger Ebert is off flame baiting the entire video game community making him either the world's oldest troll, or an ass out of himself. What he's saying is Video Games aren't art. And he's right. In gaming we tend to look for immediate gratification. Whatever we're doing has to pay off right now or we get bored and wander off. I've seen games that skip out on this. Pathologic is the best example I'm aware of, and the fact you've (almost certainly) never heard of it should tell you just how well it went over. It's hard, opaque, doesn't accept any margin for error, will screw you over during a course of (in game) days. And it tells a very disturbing and pointed story about the value of human life, and the scarcity of it. The problem is, very deliberately it is not fun. It's painful, exhausting, emotionally taxing. These are all deliberate design choices. Because, if you were having fun doing this, going through these characters lives, then it wouldn't serve the story. I'm not saying art has to be suffering, I'm saying we're forcing video games to be fun at the cost of potential artistic value. Pathologic is probably the deepest game I've ever played. And it's hell
There are a lot of games I don't "enjoy", emotionally. Halo 3 for example, Bioshock 2 is another. I enjoy the individual bits of them, but as a whole they don't make me feel happy. And before you jump in, not because of game quality. -glares- Hell, even Portal. Goddamn GLaDOS making me feel guilty about killing her.
One example comes from Sid Meier. When he was making Civilization, originally you'd have a rise and fall, and your civilization would fall apart only to allow you to pull it back together stronger than ever for a win. What ended up happening was players would quit before it turned around for them. So, in the end, Civilization was revised as a linear progression.
We're all whiny bastards in this regard, and we're poorer for it.