November 8 - November 12

I'm going to go ahead and add Call of Duty: Black Ops to the list of high profile military action games like Medal of Honor and Halo: Reach that I didn't play this year. It's not that I have some fundamental disagreement with Black Ops, though the idea of trudging through yet another CoD game is not a particularly pleasant one to me. I'm just not in the same shoot things in the face headspace that I've been in the past. Maybe that’s just me.

In fact, were some kind of weapon placed to my tender head, and I were forced to choose a game I want to pick up this week, it’s probably The Sly Collection. Sly Cooper games somehow fell into that category of games that I had always intended to get around to playing at some point but never did. The temptation of an under $40 collection of the three games is certainly powerful.

It would be simple enough, I suppose to slap up CoD: Black Ops as the game of the week, and perhaps it’s stubborn pigheadedness that prevents me from doing so, but the idea of aggrandizing yet another military shooter is distasteful for me, at least today. I'm sure at some point I will move to a different position on the matter. Instead, I think I will give the nod this week to Sly after all.

PC
- Call of Duty: Black Ops
- Football Manager 2011
- Majesty 2: Battle of Ardania
- Tom Clancy's H.A.W.X. 2

Xbox 360
- Call of Duty: Black Ops
- Monster Jam: Path of Destruction

PS3
- Call of Duty: Black Ops
- Monster Jam: Path of Destruction
- SingStar Dance
- The Fight: Lights Out
- The Sly Collection

Wii
- 101-in-1 Sports Megamix
- Call of Duty: Black Ops
- Family Feud Decades
- FlingSmash
- Just Dance Kids
- Karaoke Revolution Glee
- Monster Jam: Path of Destruction
- Tom Clancy's H.A.W.X. 2

DS
- Call of Duty: Black Ops
- Mario vs. Donkey Kong: Miniland Mayhem
- Monster Jam: Path of Destruction

PSP
- Football Manager 2011
- Knights in the Nightmare
- Monster Jam: Path of Destruction

Comments

mellonchollie wrote:

What about gritty historical shooters? But before WW1.

Don't you know they didn't have grit back then?

doubtingthomas396 wrote:

I'm still holding out for a clover studios anthology disc on the PS3.

Viewtiful Joe 1 and 2, and God Hand all on one disc. Make that happen.

And no Okami? Blasphemy! Of course, they'd have to include a Move control scheme just like on the Wii or I wouldn't touch it. Also, it's funny how quickly everyone forgot the other Viewtiful Joe game + the handheld stuff.

Too bad Clover is dead and the way things ended, I doubt Capcom would honor their memory with a compilation.

Gravey wrote:

And how about the American Civil War?

Come on, you have to be kidding me. The standard weapon in the ACW:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Springf...

Three shots per _minute_. With all of the accuracy of a 19th century rifle, this means you hit an opponent maybe once a minute.

Standard tactics are to line up and shoot each other at long range, and determine the result by attrition.

I somehow think that this makes for a not-fun game. Of course, I think this about ALL of the 'realistic' shooters, to some degree or another.

Nathaniel wrote:
Gravey wrote:

And how about the American Civil War?

Come on, you have to be kidding me. The standard weapon in the ACW:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Springf...

Three shots per _minute_. With all of the accuracy of a 19th century rifle, this means you hit an opponent maybe once a minute.

Standard tactics are to line up and shoot each other at long range, and determine the result by attrition.

I somehow think that this makes for a not-fun game. Of course, I think this about ALL of the 'realistic' shooters, to some degree or another.

Mind you, long range back then was a three or four hundred yards, but you must have missed this is your own link:

While more accurate in the hands of an experienced marksman, the rifled musket's accuracy was often lost in the hands of recruits who received only limited marksmanship training (the emphasis was on rate of fire). Further, most Civil War firefights were waged at a relatively close range using massed-fire tactics, minimizing the effect of the new rifle's long-range accuracy. Lastly, the .58 caliber bullet, when fired, followed a rainbow-like trajectory. As a result, many inexperienced soldiers who did not adjust their sights would shoot over their enemies' heads in combat. There are numerous accounts of this happening in the war's earlier battles. With this in mind, soldiers were often instructed to aim low.

Seems to me that there's a lot of room to go from competency to mastery in that mechanic.

MrDeVil909 wrote:
Gravey wrote:
wordsmythe wrote:

More Minecraft, you say?

Minecraft game of the week, again? Amazing!

Again?! It's the game that just keeps on giving.

GotY.

Nathaniel wrote:
Gravey wrote:

And how about the American Civil War?

Come on, you have to be kidding me. The standard weapon in the ACW:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Springf...

Three shots per _minute_. With all of the accuracy of a 19th century rifle, this means you hit an opponent maybe once a minute.

Standard tactics are to line up and shoot each other at long range, and determine the result by attrition.

I somehow think that this makes for a not-fun game. Of course, I think this about ALL of the 'realistic' shooters, to some degree or another.

I'm no military history buff, but that seems a little reductive. There were other small arms available at the time of the Civil War -- the Spencer Carbine, for example -- that might lend themselves to faster-paced gunplay with some interesting combat conditions, such as the excessive smoke emitted from rapid Spencer fire.

You could possibly model more diverse scenarios in the Civil War as well; not just two lines crashing against each other in latter-war attrition, but supplemental combat scenarios, situations where the player is a part of a mounted cavalry regiment that is charged with reconnaissance of an upcoming battle field.

wordsmythe wrote:
MrDeVil909 wrote:
Gravey wrote:
wordsmythe wrote:

More Minecraft, you say?

Minecraft game of the week, again? Amazing!

Again?! It's the game that just keeps on giving.

GotY.

Honestly, it's probably mine.

*edit*

owait. Beat Hazard came out this year, it feels like forever ago. That's in the running too.

OzymandiasAV wrote:
Nathaniel wrote:
Gravey wrote:

And how about the American Civil War?

Come on, you have to be kidding me. The standard weapon in the ACW:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Springf...

Three shots per _minute_. With all of the accuracy of a 19th century rifle, this means you hit an opponent maybe once a minute.

Standard tactics are to line up and shoot each other at long range, and determine the result by attrition.

I somehow think that this makes for a not-fun game. Of course, I think this about ALL of the 'realistic' shooters, to some degree or another.

I'm no military history buff, but that seems a little reductive. There were other small arms available at the time of the Civil War -- the Spencer Carbine, for example -- that might lend themselves to faster-paced gunplay with some interesting combat conditions, such as the excessive smoke emitted from rapid Spencer fire.

You could possibly model more diverse scenarios in the Civil War as well; not just two lines crashing against each other in latter-war attrition, but supplemental combat scenarios, situations where the player is a part of a mounted cavalry regiment that is charged with reconnaissance of an upcoming battle field.

And they'll probably add some turret levels to keep things exciting.

MrDeVil909 wrote:
wordsmythe wrote:
MrDeVil909 wrote:
Gravey wrote:
wordsmythe wrote:

More Minecraft, you say?

Minecraft game of the week, again? Amazing!

Again?! It's the game that just keeps on giving.

GotY.

Honestly, it's probably mine.

*edit*

owait. Beat Hazard came out this year, it feels like forever ago. That's in the running too.

Minecraft and Heavy Rain are at the top of my list right now.

I wonder why we have to find The One True Opinion on military shooters. Maybe Halo is different enough for one person from CoD and not for another, and neither of them are wrong--they're just different people with different tastes.

I think I'll pick up The Sly Collection on my way home from work today, in my ongoing effort to play the classic Playstation platformers. If that isn't available I'll pick up A Crack In Time to finish out that trilogy.

CheezePavilion wrote:

I wonder why we have to find The One True Opinion on military shooters. Maybe Halo is different enough for one person from CoD and not for another, and neither of them are wrong--they're just different people with different tastes.

You must not have heard. There is but one True Opinion, and Wordsmythe is its editor.

IMAGE(http://cdn2.knowyourmeme.com/i/23703/original/Misc-OhSnap_Bear.jpg?1256250567)

wordsmythe wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

I wonder why we have to find The One True Opinion on military shooters. Maybe Halo is different enough for one person from CoD and not for another, and neither of them are wrong--they're just different people with different tastes.

You must not have heard. There is but one True Opinion, and Wordsmythe is its editor.

wordsmythe wrote:

Move away from the Armies of [color=red]Virgina[/color] and the Potomac if you want faster, [color=red]losser[/color] gameplay.

But there's a shooter in all of us...

Kobe says so.

wordsmythe wrote:
Nathaniel wrote:
Gravey wrote:

And how about the American Civil War?

Come on, you have to be kidding me. The standard weapon in the ACW:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Springf...

Three shots per _minute_. With all of the accuracy of a 19th century rifle, this means you hit an opponent maybe once a minute.

Standard tactics are to line up and shoot each other at long range, and determine the result by attrition.

I somehow think that this makes for a not-fun game. Of course, I think this about ALL of the 'realistic' shooters, to some degree or another.

Mind you, long range back then was a three or four hundred yards, but you must have missed this is your own link:

While more accurate in the hands of an experienced marksman, the rifled musket's accuracy was often lost in the hands of recruits who received only limited marksmanship training (the emphasis was on rate of fire). Further, most Civil War firefights were waged at a relatively close range using massed-fire tactics, minimizing the effect of the new rifle's long-range accuracy. Lastly, the .58 caliber bullet, when fired, followed a rainbow-like trajectory. As a result, many inexperienced soldiers who did not adjust their sights would shoot over their enemies' heads in combat. There are numerous accounts of this happening in the war's earlier battles. With this in mind, soldiers were often instructed to aim low.

Seems to me that there's a lot of room to go from competency to mastery in that mechanic.

A lot of soldiers would shoot over their enemies' heads INTENTIONALLY. Contrary to popular belief, humans are not designed, psychologically, to kill other humans. According to Lt. Col. Dave Grossman's On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society, up through World War II, only 15-20% of soldiers would shoot to kill. Modern training techniques have been able to more successfully overcome this psychological barrier to the point where in Vietnam this number rose to 90-95%.

Personally, I would be fascinated to see a pre-Vietnam military shooter that takes this into account. Where your objective, instead of being to kill as many enemies as possible as efficiently as possible, was to kill as FEW of your fellow human beings as possible without either being killed yourself or being caught and punished by your superior officers.

hbi2k wrote:

According to Lt. Col. Dave Grossman's On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society, up through World War II, only 15-20% of soldiers would shoot to kill. Modern training techniques have been able to more successfully overcome this psychological barrier to the point where in Vietnam this number rose to 90-95%.

Modern training techniques like VIDEO GAMES.

Gravey wrote:
hbi2k wrote:

According to Lt. Col. Dave Grossman's On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society, up through World War II, only 15-20% of soldiers would shoot to kill. Modern training techniques have been able to more successfully overcome this psychological barrier to the point where in Vietnam this number rose to 90-95%.

Modern training techniques like VIDEO GAMES.

Grossman was, at one point, a very outspoken of critic of video game "murder simulators".

Gravey wrote:
hbi2k wrote:

According to Lt. Col. Dave Grossman's On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society, up through World War II, only 15-20% of soldiers would shoot to kill. Modern training techniques have been able to more successfully overcome this psychological barrier to the point where in Vietnam this number rose to 90-95%.

Modern training techniques like VIDEO GAMES.

Wow, they had FPS video games in the early 1960s? And here I thought the first one was Doom in 1993. Silly me.

Hans

Quintin_Stone wrote:
Gravey wrote:
hbi2k wrote:

According to Lt. Col. Dave Grossman's On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society, up through World War II, only 15-20% of soldiers would shoot to kill. Modern training techniques have been able to more successfully overcome this psychological barrier to the point where in Vietnam this number rose to 90-95%.

Modern training techniques like VIDEO GAMES.

Grossman was, at one point, a very outspoken of critic of video game "murder simulators".

Yeah, that's the joke I was making. Trying to make.

hidannik wrote:

Wow, they had FPS video games in the early 1960s? And here I thought the first one was Doom in 1993. Silly me.

I think they were hacked oscilloscopes, like the original Teabagging for Two.

Minarchist wrote:

IMAGE(http://cdn2.knowyourmeme.com/i/23703/original/Misc-OhSnap_Bear.jpg?1256250567)

Move away from the Armies of Virgina and the Potomac if you want faster, looser gameplay.

Just hope the designers have the sense not to try to put someone like N.B. Forrest in there.

wordsmythe wrote:

Move away from the Armies of Virgina and the Potomac if you want faster, looser gameplay.

Just hope the designers have the sense not to try to put someone like N.B. Forrest in there.

Virgina? Where's that? Google tells me the best result is University of Virginia, silly Wahoos.

Quintin_Stone wrote:
Gravey wrote:
hbi2k wrote:

According to Lt. Col. Dave Grossman's On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society, up through World War II, only 15-20% of soldiers would shoot to kill. Modern training techniques have been able to more successfully overcome this psychological barrier to the point where in Vietnam this number rose to 90-95%.

Modern training techniques like VIDEO GAMES.

Grossman was, at one point, a very outspoken of critic of video game "murder simulators".

I did find it very interesting that the first 2/3 or so of the book seemed meticulously researched and the points backed up by valid scientific study, and then the last 1/3 or so (where he discusses the implications to civilian life and his conclusions in general, including the bits about "murder simulators") seemed incredibly vague and poorly-supported. Doesn't invalidate the first 2/3 of the book, but it is weird.

Besides drawing conclusions about violent video games that have never been backed up by solid scientific research, he goes on and on about how the military is training its soldiers to kill without teaching them "the way of the warrior" that would allow them to deal with killing without PTSD or other such problems reintegrating into civilian society, but goes into no detail about what exactly this "way of the warrior" is or why it should be expected to circumvent what appears, from the research he cites earlier in the book, to be a natural and inevitable reaction to killing another human being for any psychologically normal person.

Well that was random.

I think they forgot to link to these recipes.

I'm torn. On one hand it's the most subtle UGG guerrilla marketing spam I've seen to date. On the other, those sound like delicious recipes, and I do love me some irradiated evaporated milk.

The first sly cooper game was great. Somehow I missed the second and third game.

Perhaps I will try to locate the second and third game. Though it means digging it up on the PS2 as I don't have a PS3.

Thanks for the post. It makes me incredibly happy to see that someone else enjoyed the Sly games. I fell in love with the first one and, well, just haven't met anyone else who's played them.