[QUOTE=milkandcooki;40198567]i tried that for a while, [B]but it was nowhere near as efficient[/B] as just shooting guys with the handcannon, shotgun[/QUOTE]
IMO if you've really come to the point where you're min-maxing in a singleplayer game that's mostly about it's story there's something wrong with how you're playing games.
[QUOTE=KorJax;40202129]Just because a game is subtle with its story telling doesn't make that game somehow better or more "skillfull" though if you view it with an objective eye, it just makes it different. Everybody loves how STALKER does it's enviornment design and sense of isolation, but that same sense of isolation is completely non-sensical when you try and compare it to a very well done multiplayer game like TF2. This is why you generally don't compare a game with another game and instead compare the game with how well it works within the genre as a whole.
A great game is determined objectively on how well it achieves it's design, and its goals and the experience it offers. Now how much it fits to X made up standard. Both HL2 and Infinite do this in different ways. I guess I'm a magical individual who is sensative to the things that HL2 does great while also being able to recognize the completely different things that Infinite does right. The reason why infinite excites me as a game is because it treads territories, themes, and storytelling that isn't really done well at all compared to other games in the medium, enough for it to [I]stand on its own legs[/I] when viewed from an outside perspective by someone who doesn't play games. And this is happening - there are countless numbers of people who are in that situation and really feel impacted by Infinite much like people were by HL2.[/QUOTE]
I recognize that, but I feel that when it handles these themes and territories, it doesn't execute them as well as a movie or a book might. It's still a linear FPS game, and every time I feel like an linear FPS game tries to tell a deep story with many themes and characters and cutscenes it falls a bit short as where it wants to be because it still has to be a game first, and the game part gets in the way of letting such a way of storytelling from soaring. Some of feels a bit forced in and it doesn't feel like I myself am experiencing a world that has things to offer if I think hard enough about what I am experiencing, but that I am leading a character through a world that offers things for me and that just doesn't personally effect me on the same level as half-life 2 did. They are both done very differently yes, but they are still FPS games with seamless story telling and although their execution is different I think half-life 2 stands out a lot more in terms of execution and polish. The whole game in general just feels a lot higher quality than Bioshock and Infinite. Half-Life 2 feels a lot less streamlined, and natural. Bioshock sometimes feels robotic, and video-gamey, and that just doesn't work out for itself and much as the way Half-Life 2 went.
If people are having an amazing experience with Bioshock: Inf that's great, more power to you. It all comes down to what are your likes and dislikes in the end anyways. I just feel half-life 2 did a lot better job in creating that kind of experience for people.
[QUOTE=johnlmonkey;40202050]Regardless of your personal feelings on him, he does a good job of reviewing games, he goes in depth and does his research and gives his honest opinions and backs them up. Yes some of those opinions may be stuck up and you certainly don't have to agree with them but he does a fantastic job of justifying his logic.[/QUOTE]
thats if it sticks, sometimes he just completely contradicts himself because he loves a game too much, or he nit picks at small shit that is hilariously so small that you wouldnt notice it unless you paused and stared at said thing. Like him getting mad at "modern videogames" because they are scripted shooters with no interaction. meanwhile he points at the latest medal of honor which he complained about a scripted are where he was forced to bomb a building to change the level and setting, and pointing out for literally a minute about the door they broke down being closed after the level loaded. He didnt point out the blandness of new games, the easy gameplay, or the other critical shit. I know hes supposed to be cynical, but there are much MUCH better reviewers out there who actually focus on gameplay than just getting mad at small stupid shit or getting frustrated at the game, but not wanting to learn how to play (lets not forget his ego that is fucking out of this world huge).
Literally the only reason hes even popular is because he did that beta podcast for the lich king expansion for WOW. If i was to ever look at reviewers it would now have to be adam sessler because he knows the fuck hes talking about, without being whiny, egotistical, or cynical about everything that doesnt appeal to him personally.
[QUOTE=JesterUK;40201651]"As a game, it's above avarage."
Finally. Someone had to say it.[/QUOTE]
Plenty of people have said it Jester and plenty of people have disagreed. Just because you don't think it stands up from a game play standpoint does not mean that it is true for everyone.
[editline]8th April 2013[/editline]
For the video though, he admitted he went into it with the intentions of proving the people wrong who felt it was a perfect game. It feels like because that was the goal he had set for himself he searched high and low for every inconsequential flaw he could and while he did have some valid points they felt almost cheapened by the fact that he paired them with such meaningless complaints. Furthermore in no way does "not all complaints are equal" justify some of the ones he is making. If he felt that some of the things he brought up weren't that important why did he bring them up at all?
[QUOTE=ZestyLemons;40202227]IMO if you've really come to the point where you're min-maxing in a singleplayer game that's mostly about it's story there's something wrong with how you're playing games.[/QUOTE]
What exactly is wrong with how he chose to play the game? If given a tool that is more efficient at doing a job then any other tool why would you not use it? I had the same feeling when playing once I got Shock Jockey, I never used anything else until the end when I got Return to Sender.
[QUOTE=Hinterlight;40202580]What exactly is wrong with how he chose to play the game? If given a tool that is more efficient at doing a job then any other tool why would you not use it? I had the same feeling when playing once I got Shock Jockey, I never used anything else until the end when I got Return to Sender.[/QUOTE]
If playing the most effective way possible is how you have fun good on you. Just don't go blaming the game because you didn't want to try and mix it up and use all the tools at your disposal.
[QUOTE=Winters;40202595]If playing the most effective way possible is how you have fun good on you. Just don't go blaming the game because you didn't want to try and mix it up and use all the tools at your disposal.[/QUOTE]
If I'm playing on hard and I'm using the best weapons because otherwise I'll die more often, then I'm playing the game wrong?
Wouldn't that imply that playing on the higher difficulties makes the game less fun because it encourages you to play the game wrong?
[QUOTE=Winters;40202595]If playing the most effective way possible is how you have fun good on you. Just don't go blaming the game because you didn't want to try and mix it up and use all the tools at your disposal.[/QUOTE]
But there is no incentive for mixing things up, and even if you did want to mix things up with the weapons why does the game limit you to holding just two guns at any given time?
or should i just let myself die more so that i can experience how truly varied the game is by using weaker stuff
i thought the point of a game was to not die but hey i could be wrong
the combat owned in this game, total biscuit is an annoying cunt
[QUOTE]a floating city
an american floating city
an oldschool american floating city[/QUOTE]
Totalbiscuit please think your entire sentences [I]before[/I] saying them.
[QUOTE=Rusty100;40202652]the combat owned in this game, total biscuit is an annoying cunt[/QUOTE]
the enemies quick-any-range-pinpoint accuracy was pretty annoying though. it sort of discourages the fun run and gun style that the game lends itself to. i only managed to do it because i used that gear that made your footspeed go whoosh if you got a broken shield, combined with the gear that gives you health on each kill if you were low. idk if it was only like that because i was on hard or if they just did an awful job with the ai
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;40202636]or should i just let myself die more so that i can experience how truly varied the game is by using weaker stuff
i thought the point of a game was to not die but hey i could be wrong[/QUOTE]
Hey there champ I did a completely varied play through on hard difficulty and didn't die that often. In fact I beat the siren without a single death because I was experimenting the whole game. Your incentive to mix and match is that you'll learn fun and equally as effective tactics for dispatching enemies that are more than just camping with the carbine.
Also the point of games is to have fun, thats why they're games.
also i have no idea how people with 16:9 monitors only play at a FOV of 90
i'm on a 5*4 1280*1024 and anything below 90 is extremely uncomfortable to me and feels like extreme tunnelvision
[QUOTE=Hinterlight;40202580]What exactly is wrong with how he chose to play the game? If given a tool that is more efficient at doing a job then any other tool why would you not use it? I had the same feeling when playing once I got Shock Jockey, I never used anything else until the end when I got Return to Sender.[/QUOTE]
[sp]Charge[/sp] and Bucking Bronco are both fun vigors, and way more fun than just spamming shock jockey over and over again.
Games are gonna be boring if you make them boring.
if i was on a 16:9 i'd probably have to be at like 140 or something to not feel disoriented
[QUOTE=Winters;40202671]Hey there champ I did a completely varied play through on hard difficulty and didn't die that often. In fact I beat the siren without a single death because I was experimenting the whole game. Your incentive to mix and match is that you'll learn fun and equally as effective tactics for dispatching enemies that are more than just camping with the carbine.[/QUOTE]
Well then congratulations. You get a banana star for excellent game performance.
I on the other hand used shock, hand cannon, and sniper/shotgun. And every time I strayed from that combo I got slapped down. And it seems more than a few people share my experience.
Once you put an upgrading mechanic into a game, you force a player to make investments in particular styles of play. Expecting someone to stray from that style of play after you make them commit to it is ridiculous. If I put my skill points in stealth, I'll be stealthy. If I put my money in my shotgun, I'll use my shotgun.
[QUOTE=Rusty100;40202652]the combat owned in this game, total biscuit is an annoying cunt[/QUOTE]
It was average. Skylines were the only thing ive never seen done before and they arent a staple of every fight..
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;40202711]Once you put an upgrading mechanic into a game, you force a player to make investments in particular styles of play. Expecting someone to stray from that style of play after you make them commit to it is ridiculous. If I put my skill points in stealth, I'll be stealthy. If I put my money in my shotgun, I'll use my shotgun.[/QUOTE]
I spread my upgrades out so I was effective in everything. It's not like money is hard to come by
[QUOTE=Winters;40202720]I spread my upgrades out so I was effective in everything. It's not like money is hard to come by.[/QUOTE]
if we're going by the assumption that even with upgrades every single weapon with be equally viable at any point in the game, then why is there an upgrade system to begin with
if your system of keeping all of the weapons equal is as effective as you say it is, why aren't they all just equal by default
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;40202727]if we're going by the assumption that even with upgrades every single weapon with be equally viable at any point in the game, then why is there an upgrade system to begin with
if your system of keeping all of the weapons equal is as effective as you say it is, why aren't they all just equal by default[/QUOTE]
That's not what I said the system is for, that is simply how I chose to use it. You can use the upgrade system how you please I simply picked a different way than you did and obviously had more fun. I also never said every weapon is equally viable at any point in the game, I spread out their use in whatever part I felt they'd help me.
[QUOTE=Winters;40202738]That's not what I said the system is for, that is simply how I chose to use it. You can use the upgrade system how you please I simply picked a different way than you did and obviously had more fun.[/QUOTE]
So the problem isn't with the game or the mechanics, it's that I was just playing it wrong because I was using the upgrade system in the exact same fashion as upgrade systems are used in virtually every game.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;40202750]So the problem isn't with the game or the mechanics, it's that I was just playing it wrong because I was using the upgrade system in the exact same fashion as upgrade systems are used in virtually every game.[/QUOTE]
I'm gonna need some citation on that one.
[editline]8th April 2013[/editline]
The option is there for you to maximize the use out of everything the game gives, I'm not saying you're playing it wrong by not going with that option. In my 1999 play through I stuck to the carbine, Devil's Kiss, Mind control, and the sniper. I died only 4 times which felt really awesome, but in the end I had less fun. Which to me is the most important part of playing a game I guess.
[QUOTE=Winters;40202767]I'm gonna need some citation on that one.[/QUOTE]
If I chose to put all of my upgrade points into psyonics in System Shock 2, would you say I'm playing the game wrong because I never focused on guns or hacking?
If I chose to put all my praxis points into stealth in Human Revolution, would you say I'm playing the game wrong because I never tried playing it like a cover based shooter?
If I choose to put all of my certs into medic in Planetside 2, would you say that I'm playing the game wrong because I play as a medic a majority of the time?
Same goes for Dishonored, Bioshock 1, and every goddamned RPG ever made you can be damn sure.
[editline]8th April 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Winters;40202767]The option is there for you to maximize the use out of everything the game gives, I'm not saying you're playing it wrong by not going with that option. In my 1999 play through I stuck to the carbine, Devil's Kiss, Mind control, and the sniper. I died only 4 times which felt really awesome, but in the end I had less fun. Which to me is the most important part of playing a game I guess.[/QUOTE]
That's the point. The game's mechanics encourage you to focus on playing the game with two, maybe three weapons.
That is what we call a flaw in game design.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;40202824]
That's the point. The game's mechanics encourage you to focus on playing the game with two, maybe three weapons.
That is what we call a flaw in game design.[/QUOTE]
uh no it doesnt?
The game is perfectly playable if you spread upgrades out. I didnt put all my money into 2 guns and one vigor, I spread them out into what I was using and what seemed helpful. In the end, its YOUR choice to upgrade 2 weapons fully, but by no means is it necessary, and the game never forces/encourages you to do that, or to spread em out. Its your choice.
try playing 1999 mode
the game becomes x2 as hard if you don't focus your upgrades
[QUOTE=Hamsterjuice;40202928]try playing 1999 mode
the game becomes x2 as hard if you don't focus your upgrades[/QUOTE]
I've beaten 1999 mode, and honestly it wasnt as hard as I thought, and I still spread the little upgrades I had
maybe i'm just bad at games iunno
i couldn't care less about gameplay either way, not why i wanted to play infinite
I'm done watching the entire thing and wow, the entire gameplay got simplified hard. Bioshock: Halo, much? Walk around with your own personal item dispenser throwing you shit to regenerate all your bars but your shield bar, which regenerates by itself
And for an audience who gets mad and makes shitty jokes about entire games being brown, grey or blue there was not much of a mention at how Infinite is blindingly red/orange
The game is really not deserving of the bioshock title at all, it's completely different from the first two, it would have been better as a new IP or something
[QUOTE=latin_geek;40203115]I'm done watching the entire thing and wow, the entire gameplay got simplified hard. Bioshock: Halo, much? Walk around with your own personal item dispenser throwing you shit to regenerate all your bars but your shield bar, which regenerates by itself
And for an audience who gets mad and makes shitty jokes about entire games being brown, grey or blue there was not much of a mention at how Infinite is blindingly red/orange
The game is really not deserving of the bioshock title at all, it's completely different from the first two, it would have been better as a new IP or something[/QUOTE]
The gameplay is literally the same as the original?
And why is regenerating shields a bad thing when it can be done right?
And it has an art style so what?
And then if it wasn't called Bioshock then it'd be completely missing the point of the story?
People like to get mad at great games after the fact to be all edgy I understand this, but Bioshock Infinite is a solid game and probably a generation defining one too. Your game doesn't need deep ass shooting mechanics to be good, it can just be fun to play and there is nothing wrong with that. Deep =/= fun all the time, and when I played this game I had a shit ton of fun through the story and combat where it mixes things up with the air rails and Elizabeth (Who helped a shit ton and not in an annoying easy way, but as a legitimate companion to your experience).
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
