What is the worst thing a game can do?
- Thread starter retyopy
- Start date
i LOVE IT when the squadrons of choppers show up; evading death with a tiny bit of blinky health -i survive LONGER in this condition than with full health/armor, wherein i can die FAST- while hijacking six in a row, then running away to attack some random base.Slim-Shot said:
It could do with some sort of GH upgrade. The thing JC needs most is some bullet-time, what with the mayhem and death restricting the utility of the hook adding to it. Also a couple of Mercenaries 2's airstrikes, then it'd perfect.
Very true on many points. Looking at the extremely propaganda games based around the cold war era, you get this on many fronts. I cant think of any right off the top of my head either then the ones you've mentioned but your point remians all the same.Treblaine said:
If Call of Juarez was a popular and GOOD game, my god. If only people could see this kind of stuff and realize what they are viewing. It's all a matter of perspective.
PS - EC has been at PA for about 4 or 5 weeks now. About two or three weeks after the incident. They've uploaded all they're previous episodes from here to PA as well. =)
Maybe "Regenerating health done inappropriately" like in Duke Nukem Forever where it is NOT used intelligently, it is used lazily in a way that negatively effects pacing.Pirakahunter788 said:
Remember, health can regenerate in many different ways:
-Halo style: after 5 seconds no damage, the "shield" bar swiftly recovers but not instantly
-COD style: after 5 seconds no damage then in an instant 100% of the health is recovered
-RPG/Crysis style: HP is constantly recovering at a slow rate, overall the same rate as COD style but more continuous
-TF2 + Medic style: (Only when medic healed) constant + in HP, but for the 5 seconds after being -damaged the HP recovery rate is much slower
The rebounding health style, where the only way to even begin the healing process means staying in
A health rebounding system that has the 5-second no-damage ticker effectively forces the player to hide like a coward, they MUST leave the fight, just a single HP damage from a flashbang, fall, distant explosion or whatever will reset the timer. That is fine for glorified sniping games like COD (really, it is all running from cover to cover, and picking off enemies from a distance) but not for a shooter that is about getting up close and personal, a game that is all about keeping constant pressure on the enemy.
COD rebounding health only works in Multiplayer because of player numbers on map mean you normally only fight one person at a time, then hide for 5-sec to recover health.
Of those games favouring the more aggressive playstyle, the constant-regeneration health is much better, as say you are knocked down to 1hp and HP recovers at 10hp every second, in 2 seconds you are back with enough health to survive a small hit, you can start advancing much sooner without fearing the slightest knock will kill you and by the time you are in the thick of it then you will be back at 100%
And of course there are many other ways of doing this. One thing I was disappointed that DNF never did was linking the EGO (health) bar to your combat prowess, so by shooting the enemy, you recover health by the video game logic that such a thing would boost one's ego. So if you get hit by a rocket and are hurting, the only way to win is to take the fight to the enemy. Successive shooting in a short time period overheals you temporarily and can can spur "berserk mode" of near invincibility.
Though personally, I most prefer the health bar with health-packs and pickups. Rare items that are valuable to find. The problem is it usually means a button dedicated to recovering health.
I think I would like to add that there is nothing wrong with propaganda in itself.Sarmos said:
Propaganda to get you to join an army to DEFEAT the Nazis is very different from propaganda that tells you to join an army fighting FOR the Nazis.
The difference between America's Army and that Hamas recruitment game is not HOW the games are, but WHAT the games are recruiting for. Hamas is a terrorist organisation with a stated explicit goal of "destroying Israel" which is an ally of the United States and hurting the US as much as it can in the mean time. Of course an American is going to be aghast at recruitment for such a thing.
You can't look at this objectively. Of course an American is going to view the US Army favourably, it is defending THEIR country and fighting for THEIR values and interests! They are fighting and defeating America's most insidious enemies in Afghanistan.
The mistake is saying say tool is inherently "good" or "bad".
In the EC propaganda episode the tub-thumping pro-american I don't believe the commentator didn't say America's Army was good simply because it was any old propaganda, but because it encouraged people to join a cause that he (and I suspect many others) believe is a good cause, at least for his own country.
The point is propaganda is a tool, like a gun, it can be used for good or evil. One may say that if a tool could be used for evil then it should be almost completely prohibited (as is the british attitude to guns and other things), which is fine until your enemies use such tools and come to dominate and destroy you. Then you should consider using such tools for good.
I mean, what is the difference between Public Relations and Propaganda? Edward Bernays invented public relations after serving in the propaganda department of the US Army, only he wanted to take their principals much further. Really, how is is REALLY different telling someone to buy a gym membership to make you fit, or to buy cigarettes? It's the same principal, the same method, the same concept, whether either is right or wrong purely depends on WHAT they are selling and whether that is genuinely harmful or beneficial.
Propaganda is definitely a biased point of view, but how is inherently a bad thing? A lawyer defending you in court can hardly be expected to pay lip service to the opposing argument, nor the same with the prosecution lawyer. Unless a state wants to resort to forcible conscription (like Royal Navy press gangs) how else are you going to raise a large enough army to fight against threatening forces?
The Army can make a pro-war game, while Hollywood can make an anti-war movie as they often do. The free media and press are permitted and capable of making an anti-army game. Expecting the US Army to tell "both sides of the story" in their recruitment efforts is like legislating that Oliver Stone MUST show the positive side of US involvement in the Vietnam War.
This effort to eliminate bias point of view could lead to no one being able to say anything conclusive.
Oliver Stone is as entitled to make his cutting criticism of the US Army, as the US Army is entitled to be proponents of the Army for recruitment.
In a free and democratic society - based on Armies of volunteers rather than conscripts - the government MUST be allowed to make their unadulterated argument for recruitment. If the only biased argument that is allowed to be heard is the one saying the army is evil and you should never join... what are the ONLY kind of people who will join the army? Level headed people? Or people who are unaffected by the arguments of evil allegations because they don't care. Because all they want to do is shoot people. That's not a good thing.
Everyone is entitled to freedom of speech, even - though to some it may not have consider it - including the government.
On one side of the argument it is called Propaganda.
On the other side the argument is called Protest.
Two sides of the same coin.
It's the same thing, arguing for or against something. Which side is right? Well, that's for you - as an individual - to decide. Protests arguments can be just as deceptive, misleading and manipulative as any Propaganda argument, the concepts are neutral, either can be used for good or evil. These are all subjective things.
I suppose one distinction is Propaganda is defined by being FOR something, while Protest is defined by being AGAINST something.
I think the best path in a free and democratic society would be to let both sides of the argument make their case without being adulterated to "reduce bias".
There is such a thing as "Unnecessary Romance". It happens in alot of Chinese films from what I hear.x-machina said:
As for a movie with no romance save the bromance I feel for it, Boondock Saints.
I don't disagree that romance CAN spice a story up rather well (when done correctly), but it's not essential.
And maybe funny for anotherretyopy said:
how it may sound " yes yes or yeah yes make don't stop you criminal scum yea ya " no offense
On topic
hmm ti be boring which i see many developers have achieved
Worst thing a game can do? Failing to entertain in any way whatsoever is just about the worst thing a game can do, with the permanent internet connection requirement being a close second. Not much worse than having to play the same level over and over because you lost the connection to a server for half a second and your progress is no longer being saved.
*checks their posts*
Nope, I can't seem to find that anywhere. It's ok to have different opinions, you know? No reason to fly off the handle and make out that someone is a muppet because they don't like silent protagonists.
Did they say they wanted every character in a game to be like Duke Nukem or flat out retarded like Samus from Other M?Treblaine said:
*checks their posts*
Nope, I can't seem to find that anywhere. It's ok to have different opinions, you know? No reason to fly off the handle and make out that someone is a muppet because they don't like silent protagonists.
