Revenge
- Thread starter Yahtzee Croshaw
- Start date
My favorite gaming revenge moment of all time was in Half-Life 2: where you finally kill that motherfucking helicopter at the end of "water hazard." Helicopters nowadays have been in war games too much I'll agree, but the reason developers keep on putting helicopters in their games is that they are all trying to re-create that one moment with the original motherfucking helicopter in Half-Life 2. That thing hunted you, caused you grief at every turn, it dropped bombs in front of you when you were going too fast to steer out of the way, made sure you could never stop to catch your breath, killed you thousands of times and finally at the end of that boss battle it died. Never has anything been quite as satisfying for me and I was so ecstatic with sheer joy afterwards that I had to get out of my airboat and whack it with the crowbar a few times.
There are probably better revenge moments in other games. I mean, I haven't played much, I'm only sixteen. Nevertheless, for me, that has gone down in history as one of the greatest "fuck yea" moments of all time (along with stabbing ganondorf in the forehead at the end of The Wind Waker).
There are probably better revenge moments in other games. I mean, I haven't played much, I'm only sixteen. Nevertheless, for me, that has gone down in history as one of the greatest "fuck yea" moments of all time (along with stabbing ganondorf in the forehead at the end of The Wind Waker).
Another interesting read, my all time favorite book also happens to be The Count of Monte Cristo.
Oh, and if you want to really tear previously difficult things apart, there's always new game+ in a Super Robot Wars game, which lets you keep a lot of money and other stuff so that even though your level's still low you can completely demolish the entire first half of the game by bringing fully upgraded mechs into a fight that expects you not to have them.
Oh, and if you want to really tear previously difficult things apart, there's always new game+ in a Super Robot Wars game, which lets you keep a lot of money and other stuff so that even though your level's still low you can completely demolish the entire first half of the game by bringing fully upgraded mechs into a fight that expects you not to have them.
Im pretty sure dragon age: origins did something similar where by the time you've finished getting your army all the darkspawn are dropped to level 5 (even lieutenants like alphas ogres and emissaries) and your 25 so at points (if your mage of course) they can throw 50 some enemies at you and they can all just be blown away with a single fireball, fun stuff
I was screaming Half Life 2 (as was a lot of readers) when I was reading it.
But another example is Portal. Not only do you kill her like you did to the companion cube you also you use her rockets and her portal gun to evoke your most deserved revenge. And to add to the suspense (like Half Life 2) it's on a time limit.
But another example is Portal. Not only do you kill her like you did to the companion cube you also you use her rockets and her portal gun to evoke your most deserved revenge. And to add to the suspense (like Half Life 2) it's on a time limit.
STFU.Captain Pancake said:
Anyways, I agree with you on Niko. The idea of having the main character be a guy who's backstory could fill its own game gives Niko a depth that other characters just don't have. And as for revenge, I haven't really played any games that involve revenge, so I guess I can't comment on that.
I have a small suggestion regarding the Fun Space Game: collecting space junk in orbital space sounds much more interesting, not to mention more plausible. When spacecraft dunking it out in outer space at high speeds explode, all of their component parts tend to scatter around the galaxy until they hit something, even a planet in another solar system 500 years later, since there's nothing to stop them. So the clouds of debris floating in mid-nothingness that you see in Star Trek are a convenient, but ridiculously implausible plot device. Now, I'm not pushing for hard realism here, but embracing this kind of limitation can lead to internal consistency within the game.
For example, deciding that no battles are fought in deep space would make sense since there's nothing there to fight for, and it's not a battle anyone would show up for. This leads to a point-centric setting where population and trade is concentrated around planets, asteroids and space stations, which has many benefits - there is always a backdrop for the space battles which helps maintain orientation, and planets aren't that hard to draw, I suppose; orbital space even for us today is FILLED with debris just floating around, so big (and thick) fields of space junk become not only plausible, but expected; to defend orbital traffic from these debris, local station owners (or insurance companies) would hire some kind of space janitors to keep local space clean and maybe even patrol around for looters; planetary grids of "laser brooms" (a concept being developed even today) that burn the debris out of orbit would be established, which could make for exciting scenes of the pilot evading planetary defense systems; within orbit, ships would have to maintain some reasonable speed, which makes for more believable space combat (whereas in outer space you could engage even at near-light speeds, which would make battles last a fraction of a second); stealth (or at least misdirection) becomes a viable tactic, as ships can hide behind larger debris, behind the planet, mingle with other ships, and so on.
Okay, got carried away again. I read too much Atomic Rocket. But I think this would bring a welcome amount of content in space games. For zipping around the void of space you could always invent some kind of pilotable "afterburner" speeds that could be used to traverse interplanetary distances, but fights themselves there would be awkward. And a little empty.
For example, deciding that no battles are fought in deep space would make sense since there's nothing there to fight for, and it's not a battle anyone would show up for. This leads to a point-centric setting where population and trade is concentrated around planets, asteroids and space stations, which has many benefits - there is always a backdrop for the space battles which helps maintain orientation, and planets aren't that hard to draw, I suppose; orbital space even for us today is FILLED with debris just floating around, so big (and thick) fields of space junk become not only plausible, but expected; to defend orbital traffic from these debris, local station owners (or insurance companies) would hire some kind of space janitors to keep local space clean and maybe even patrol around for looters; planetary grids of "laser brooms" (a concept being developed even today) that burn the debris out of orbit would be established, which could make for exciting scenes of the pilot evading planetary defense systems; within orbit, ships would have to maintain some reasonable speed, which makes for more believable space combat (whereas in outer space you could engage even at near-light speeds, which would make battles last a fraction of a second); stealth (or at least misdirection) becomes a viable tactic, as ships can hide behind larger debris, behind the planet, mingle with other ships, and so on.
Okay, got carried away again. I read too much Atomic Rocket. But I think this would bring a welcome amount of content in space games. For zipping around the void of space you could always invent some kind of pilotable "afterburner" speeds that could be used to traverse interplanetary distances, but fights themselves there would be awkward. And a little empty.
So your hero is to be a jaded veteran, fallen from grace and grown cynical by the horrors he's both seen and perpetrated. A rebel who is 'willing to antagonize a huge, resourceful organization of armed fanatics despite having only a tiny salvage vessel to his name'.
I didn't much like Firefly, but my housemate and I watched Serenity the other night and I quite enjoyed it.
What? Those two statements are completely unrelated. Completely.
I didn't much like Firefly, but my housemate and I watched Serenity the other night and I quite enjoyed it.
What? Those two statements are completely unrelated. Completely.
I am going to go buy GTA IV, and beat it without killing anyone unessecary, always drive the speed limit and blah blah blah, just to make you wrong, 99.9% chance
I in no way found Niko Bellic relatable. I found him to be a cardboard character who had to remind people he was a conscience-free sociopath in ways that didn't always jive with his actions. It's like a game where they constantly remind you your character is the greatest swordsman in the world, but he falls flat on his face in every combat scene.
I hated those parts in Half-life 2, the enemies has literally zero challenge so I felt like I was just walking through the same combine hallway twenty thousand times to get to the end. I think the end of a game should be the most challenging part, they shouldn't let you breeze through the end just so you can get your revenge on the harder enemies.j0frenzy said:
Again, something doesn't make sence - first Yahtzee says that when the bag guys level up with the protagonist (like Oblivion) is lame, because you don't get any egde on them. But in the next paragraph, he says that a game needs to introduce stronger enemies as the player get access to stronger attacks. Isn't it the same as making the enemies stronger as the player gets stronger (like Oblivion)?? So which is it?
*minor Grand Theft Auto 4 spoilers ahead*
Interesting to see Niko get a mention as a great example of character writing...I only got GTA4 recently, having only ever played the first in the series which, as I recall, had a fairly paper-thin plot. I'm not very far into it, but I am finding Niko fascinating - a broken man soldiering on through an alien land full of criminality and horror. But speaking as someone obsessed with how gameplay is used to tell a story, I'm not entirely convinced he works as a Grand Theft Auto protagonist.
See, there's a moment in the game where Niko snaps and murders a guy just for sleeping with his cousin's girlfriend. Before this moment Niko is a calm, reasonable man - unafraid to take dirty jobs if he has to, but never one to kill for personal reasons. It seems to be his perogative to stay completely professional and detached from his work. This moment of disproportionate revenge should be a major turning point for the character, but the problem is that the average player will, by this stage, have spent several happy hours shooting, stabbing, beating and running over pedestrians for kicks (I know I did) - which, of course, is exactly what you're supposed to do in these games, but it's totally at odds with the character. Niko does indeed seem to be a great character, but I can't help thinking he belongs in a much different game. The dialogue's telling you he's one thing, but the natural flow of the gameplay is telling you he's another.
Like I say, I'm not very far into the game and maybe I'm totally side-stepping the point. It just seems to me like that guy Faustin is a clear foreshadowing of what Niko is in danger of becoming; it's a much less interesting idea when you've already made him into a proper lunatic.
Interesting to see Niko get a mention as a great example of character writing...I only got GTA4 recently, having only ever played the first in the series which, as I recall, had a fairly paper-thin plot. I'm not very far into it, but I am finding Niko fascinating - a broken man soldiering on through an alien land full of criminality and horror. But speaking as someone obsessed with how gameplay is used to tell a story, I'm not entirely convinced he works as a Grand Theft Auto protagonist.
See, there's a moment in the game where Niko snaps and murders a guy just for sleeping with his cousin's girlfriend. Before this moment Niko is a calm, reasonable man - unafraid to take dirty jobs if he has to, but never one to kill for personal reasons. It seems to be his perogative to stay completely professional and detached from his work. This moment of disproportionate revenge should be a major turning point for the character, but the problem is that the average player will, by this stage, have spent several happy hours shooting, stabbing, beating and running over pedestrians for kicks (I know I did) - which, of course, is exactly what you're supposed to do in these games, but it's totally at odds with the character. Niko does indeed seem to be a great character, but I can't help thinking he belongs in a much different game. The dialogue's telling you he's one thing, but the natural flow of the gameplay is telling you he's another.
Like I say, I'm not very far into the game and maybe I'm totally side-stepping the point. It just seems to me like that guy Faustin is a clear foreshadowing of what Niko is in danger of becoming; it's a much less interesting idea when you've already made him into a proper lunatic.
Agreed, every game with a level-up or upgrade system should have the Maplestory monster system-starting areas have weak monsters that can and will hand your spleen to you on a platinum platter with a little garnish during the first half hour, then you progressively move on to different areas with stronger monsters, but always have the option to go back to the weak monsters.