Bay 12 Games Forum

I'm sticking with VS, too, as the NC is the faction I like the least. I would be willing to make a TR character, though.

That's my opinion too, but we've got quite a few wipes between now and release so there's no loss in making multiple characters to dick around with friends.

Quote from: Sirus on August 28, 2012, 12:56:59 pm

Crysalids seemed a bit weak, but I'm guessing that was just for demoing purposes. I still got a chill down my spine when one leapt what seemed to be three stories in the air and out of site. These things could potentially be even nastier than the originals.

I believe that Jake at one point in the feed said that Chryssalids on higher difficulties get more hitpoints. So, yeah, playing on the Classic (or the Impossible mode, if you are ballsy enough) will make you scream for your virtual mama as the Chryssies go to town on your squad.

I'd still say that Chryssalids have taken a pretty heavy nerf.  I can understand why though, given that they were hands-down the most dangerous non-etheral enemy in the original.  They were fast, powerful, tough, and just one could wipe out a party if not immediately focused.  The "zergling" makeover was probably necessary to balance the threat with other enemies and avoid taking anyone else's niche.  While the new zombie mechanics are definitely more forgiving for the player, I like the way the AI knows to exploit the civilians on terror missions and the timed-chestburst mechanics add an interesting element of choice (killing the zombie to prevent a Chryssalid from spawning vs. killing the Chryssalid to prevent more zombies from spawning).  The smaller, more spindly Chryssalids also look more like something you could fit in a human.

I suspect the reduced danger will be mitigated by a lot of the filler species becoming actual threats.

PULL THE LEVER

OPEN THE FLOODGATES

LET IT FLOW

THIS WEEKEND THE SERVERS WILL BURN

(Smedley announces that they're letting everyone with a key in in the next batch)

Quote from: towerdude on August 22, 2012, 03:37:09 pm

What I can hardly understand here, is that people tend to avoid arguments like the plague. We have to accept that we are not robots, or a unified hive, to see everybody agreeing in everything. Why don't we welcome this as an opportunity to exchange ideas, and enrich our knowledge about others? We could find certain aspects of the discussion, what is harder to reach in a "fluffy" environment.

Of course that doesn't mean Argumentum Ad Hominem or the like.

You confound argument with an exchange of ideas.  They are not at all the same.  As Toady's footnote at the end of the last thread pointed out, moderation of a discussion is what is needed, not an escalating series of injurious attacks.

As Frumple pointed out, there really isn't anything more to be said.  We've already meticulously cataloged the merits and flaws of TESII: Buggerfall, TESIII: Walking and Reading and More Walking, TESIV: Fucked-Up Anime Modding Platform, and TESV: Todd Howard's Big Dumb Barbarian Wank Fantasy.  Most of us would probably agree that they all have some features that make them enjoyable, and I'd say that forcing Toady to moderate the same argument over and over again is a selfish tax on someone who has better things to do.

Activision is lawful evil.  They'll screw you over to make money, but you always know what to expect from them.  They understand that you make more money if you keep your franchises and customers.

EA is chaotic evil.  They just want to see the world burn.

To put it another way, Activision is Lex Luthor, EA is the Joker.

Someone found this on youtube.  It seems to do a better job of showing off the game than any of the official videos we've seen.

Quote from: fenrif on August 04, 2012, 07:59:58 am

Yeah Zynga is way worse! Remember when they bought out all those classic gaming studios and then ran them into the ground? And how they now own the rights to some of gamings most beloved franchises and only roll them out as generic FPS games with no hint of the old magic? And how they actively work agains their own customers rights? And how that whole "zynga_spouse" thing worked out with them forcing their employees to work 7 days a week 13 hours a day.

Remember when EA gave it's employees stock options, only to then demand they give that stock back or be fired. Remember when EA made their money from scamming their customers directly and indirectly by deliberately working with known scam advertising companies? EA may be a bad games company, but Zynga is arguably a worse company full stop.

It seems to be the classic argument of scale, which boils down to the old deontological vs consequentialist debate.  EA is larger, and thus able to commit crimes of a greater magnitude and have a larger negative effect on the entertainment software industry, while Zynga has taken more unconscionable actions but at a smaller scale.

We should probably stop trying to measure who has the biggest evil dick and celebrate that two dying monsters are preying on each other.

Quote from: Rex_Nex on August 03, 2012, 01:14:26 pm

It just looks... bland. I've read up on a bit and saw the E3 gameplay (unfortunately barely any actual fps action was shown) and wasn't impressed.

So... it's a huge mmofps. Other then having a lot of players, what does this game bring to the table that isn't systematically done by other FPS games? I cant help but look at the feature list that includes things like "regenerating shields" a la Halo, fast-paced combat, skill progression that mimics that in Eve, and a Cash Shop and feel let down. 38 pages for this game? Maybe there's something I'm missing.

I've to admit to being intrigued by the whole territorial control ordeal, but that's not enough to get me interested. The gameplay just doesn't seem to back it up.

The visuals are alarming, too. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and hope they've improved since E3.

You are being being overly critical.

Nonsense.  There's no such thing as excessive criticism.

Quote from: Rex_Nex on August 03, 2012, 01:14:26 pm

The visuals are alarming, too. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and hope they've improved since E3.

Also, calling the visuals "alarming" is going over the line. Just because it does not look as good as Crysis doesn't automatically mean it is horrible, bad and unacceptable. Even then, it is an MMO for crying out loud. There is a limit to how good something can look when there might be 500 of them loaded at the same time.

I don't really see the point of this criticism, though.  From what I've seen, PS2 looks like one of the best games I've ever seen, although likely below things like Crysis and The Witcher 2.  It certainly doesn't look like anything that could be produced with the current console hardware.  I also haven't seen any of the bloom or desaturation filters that plague modern games.  Is it the artistic design that you find alarming?  I may not be the the best judge of the graphics, as it could look like PS1 for all I care.

The appeal of any game can be hard to pin down.  I'd say it's in the way the change in scale affects the original genre.  Think about what makes EVE different from a single-player space sim.  In the same way that EVE's economy is driven by player interaction, PS2's war is a real thing of which your experience is a small tangible component.  It's also nice to have an MMO where you affect the outcome by flying and shooting people instead of watching numbers go up and down.  The fact that it looks like a solid vehicle and class based FPS in it's own right is also good.  If you have no interest there's no reason to play, but it's free to play so there's nothing to lose by trying it.

edit: Steam!