Gaming Confessions & Blasphemy

Dyni wrote:
EvilDead wrote:

Halo is a better First Person Shooter then Half Life - From gun feel, weapon balance, audio feedback, to enemy AI, Halo is just more engaging as a shooter. Sure, Half life has some fun physics puzzles scattered throughout but the actual gun combat is just very bland. I don't play FPS games for story, I play them to have fun with the gunplay and AI (With the exception of Bioshock). Its time for a source engine makeover!

I love me some Half Life, but +1. Halo still has the best combat of any shooter around. Every encounter is engaging. I cant tell if the Halo hate on this site is primarily from stubborn PC only guys or a bunch of dudes that just don't like varied and interesting shooter combat. Either way, it puzzles me. Sorry GWJ, but the masses are right on this one.

I love me some Half-Life 2 (never played the original) but I have to agree with this as well.

Dyni wrote:
EvilDead wrote:

Halo is a better First Person Shooter then Half Life - From gun feel, weapon balance, audio feedback, to enemy AI, Halo is just more engaging as a shooter. Sure, Half life has some fun physics puzzles scattered throughout but the actual gun combat is just very bland. I don't play FPS games for story, I play them to have fun with the gunplay and AI (With the exception of Bioshock). Its time for a source engine makeover!

I love me some Half Life, but +1. Halo still has the best combat of any shooter around. Every encounter is engaging. I cant tell if the Halo hate on this site is primarily from stubborn PC only guys or a bunch of dudes that just don't like varied and interesting shooter combat. Either way, it puzzles me. Sorry GWJ, but the masses are right on this one.

I agree with both of you, but still feel that Halo's gunplay could get tighter.

I mean - why no iron sights? Why doesn't my accuracy improve when I crouch?

Meanwhile, I do love that I can use the difficulty slider in Halo to change between "shooting gallery" and "intelligent AI that treats me like the wrong end of a shooting gallery". Nothing like going through a Spartan Ops mission with a dozen Knights taking turns destroying me before I can even take down a single one because I'm playing on Legendary.

My problem with Halo is I find the shooting the only good part of that game. Everything else about it is pretty mediocre. Especially the cut and paste, rushed, confusing level design. If you want to compare it to Half-Life then Halo's level design becomes even more embarrassing considering Valve did more with much, much less.

And I'm not sure I'm sold on the idea that it's all that "varied" either, most enemies have one critical weakness that's easily exploitable. Grunts are grenade fodder, Elites just need their shields taken down and shot in the head, Hunters can be one shotted incredibly easily. In fact, you can pretty much just roll through the game with a plasma pistol for shields and a regular pistol for everything else.

Until you face the flood of course, then the game just turns into a tepid pool of piss that I'll pass on. I've played Halo up to the library dozens of times, I've only beat it once or twice.

gore wrote:

c) I never finished FO:NV. I intentionally avoided finishing it because I didn't want to be disappointed in the ending.

I loved the story of my courier in FO:NV so much, I didn't want it to ever end - so I didn't let it. I just parked my Courier on a cliff somewhere instead of going to the scripted finale.

Actually refusing to finish a game because I love it so much is something I've never done before or since, but it felt like the right thing to do. I mentioned earlier that I think of FO:NV as perhaps my favorite video game, and I don't know whether failing to see the ending is a response to that fact or a partial cause of it.

I felt that way at the end of FO3. I just kept wanting to play, so I made sure I had to the DLC installed before doing the final mission, but I still

Spoiler:

missed losing daddy Liam Neeson

But I'm almost the opposite with most games. Unless the DLC is streamlined into the middle of gameplay (and not extra missions tacked on at the end), I'm probably not going to play it.

I've still got the ME3 DLC out there waiting, as well as the two packs for Borderlands 2, and a few other games. Basically, I've beaten the game, and don't want to go back into those worlds because my character's story is over.

Don't even get me started with the denouement in Red Dead Redemption. The moment the camera fades in from black,

Spoiler:

as you're standing over the graves of John and his wife, and you're in the boots of his son

it was over for me. I tried to go back and finish up some completionist things, but I just couldn't.

Keithustus wrote:
Parallax Abstraction wrote:

As a massive life-long Nintendo fan, I think Mario 64 is awful.

I would like to agree, since playing M64 I kept thinking, couldn't this be more like Super Mario World, but I found all the stars or whatever, so does that invalidate my criticism? I've not enjoyed any Mario game at all since, but haven't tried many of them, either. I even got. Ores with New SMB, but maybe I was just too old already when it came out?

I think context is important with most vintage games.

I purchased an N64 and with Mario64 on launch day and easily remember having my mind blown by the 3D presentation combined with the novelty of controller stick movement.

May not hold up well by today's standards (most N64 games are painful to look at), but that the time it was nothing short of revolutionary (console-wise, at least).

It reminds me of my old stand-by callback, AD&D: Treasure of Tarmin for Intellivision. I think it's the first 3D dungeon crawler that I ever played and as such is a pillar of sweet nostalgia and remembrance for me.

IMAGE(http://www.zebeth.com/playplanet/enemyghoulscreenshot.gif)

Utterly laughable by today's standards, but back in '83, I felt like I was experiencing space-age technology. :p

Parallax Abstraction wrote:

As a massive life-long Nintendo fan, I think Mario 64 is awful.

I would like to agree, since playing M64 I kept thinking, couldn't this be more like Super Mario World, but I found all the stars or whatever, so does that invalidate my criticism? I've not enjoyed any Mario game at all since, but haven't tried many of them, either. I even got bored with New SMB, but maybe I was just too old already when it came out?

EvilDead wrote:

Halo is a better First Person Shooter then Half Life

Uh, no. You're playing a shooter, right? Then stuff should die when you shoot it, not after you use half your ammo with any gun other than a sniper rifle to down the thing's shields, then the other half to maybe reduce its life enough to kill it.

And am I the only who hates games in which your life refills because you don't take damage for a few seconds? Maybe life bars weren't great, but I greatly prefer them to "hide and heal" gameplay. I pretty much can't enjoy Gears, CoD, etc. because the combat is pretty much too stupid because of this. In the debate between Halo, Half-Life, etc., as the best shooter circa 2000, I easily choose Counter-Strike. How does CS:GO handle player damage? Considering how much better of gameplay CS had over its contemporaries twelve years ago, I expect it to not sell out.

Dyni wrote:
EvilDead wrote:

Halo is a better First Person Shooter then Half Life - From gun feel, weapon balance, audio feedback, to enemy AI, Halo is just more engaging as a shooter. Sure, Half life has some fun physics puzzles scattered throughout but the actual gun combat is just very bland. I don't play FPS games for story, I play them to have fun with the gunplay and AI (With the exception of Bioshock). Its time for a source engine makeover!

I love me some Half Life, but +1. Halo still has the best combat of any shooter around. Every encounter is engaging. I cant tell if the Halo hate on this site is primarily from stubborn PC only guys or a bunch of dudes that just don't like varied and interesting shooter combat. Either way, it puzzles me. Sorry GWJ, but the masses are right on this one.

In my vast knowledge and experience with Halo (maybe 10 hours of Halo 1 and 3 hours of Halo 2), the environments are very sterile -- I want more garbage and personal effects in my games. I also found way too much pink and pearlescent green for my taste.

Keithustus wrote:

In the debate between Halo, Half-Life, etc., as the best shooter circa 2000, I easily choose Counter-Strike. How does CS:GO handle player damage? Considering how much better of gameplay CS had over its contemporaries twelve years ago, I expect it to not sell out.

I was referring to the mechanics of the series, not a particular game and strictly their campaigns hence the AI comments. I should have been more clear.

As someone who has put more time into CS then any other online shooter I have ever played (3-4 mostly non-working years) I have to say it was a great game but hasn't aged well (I'm including its more recent iterations).

MojoBox wrote:

My problem with Halo is I find the shooting the only good part of that game. Everything else about it is pretty mediocre. Especially the cut and paste, rushed, confusing level design. If you want to compare it to Half-Life then Halo's level design becomes even more embarrassing considering Valve did more with much, much less.

And I'm not sure I'm sold on the idea that it's all that "varied" either, most enemies have one critical weakness that's easily exploitable. Grunts are grenade fodder, Elites just need their shields taken down and shot in the head, Hunters can be one shotted incredibly easily. In fact, you can pretty much just roll through the game with a plasma pistol for shields and a regular pistol for everything else.

Until you face the flood of course, then the game just turns into a tepid pool of piss that I'll pass on. I've played Halo up to the library dozens of times, I've only beat it once or twice.

Halo 2, Halo 3, ODST, Reach, and Halo 4 all make improvements on these points. We see new enemies in 2 and 3, new enemy tactics in ODST and Reach, and more new enemies in 4.

There's still some copypasta level design in 4 (corridor -> elevator -> shooting gallery -> corridor -> elevator -> ad naseum), but its pretty minimal. The story, on the other hand is a totally different matter.

But even back in the day, Halo:CE had some of the best hit location management at the time. It wasn't the first to give enemies weakspots, but it felt head and shoulders above the rest. The fact that you could reliably take out Grunts and Elites with headshots, and blast arms off the turned Flood, was pretty revolutionary.

And am I the only who hates games in which your life refills because you don't take damage for a few seconds?

I kind of view it like the potion change for WoW during the transition from Vanilla to the first expansion (I remember where it takes place, but suddenly can't remember, for the life of me, what the name of it was). Having refilling life means you'll always have an idea of what your player's life is going to be going into an encounter. Makes it easier to design encounters without wondering if this is too hard unless the character found X, Y, and Z earlier in the level.

This generally doesn't irritate me too much as long as there's some limits on that regen. In the case of ME2 and 3, that time is not insubstantial, and staying hidden can lead to some decent flanking and such, putting you in a worse place than you were before. For the AC games, you had to be like out of combat and not even being pursued before that regen occured. Those were generally pretty good compromises for me.

EvilDead wrote:

As someone who has put more time into CS then any other online shooter I have ever played (3-4 non working years) I have to say it was a great game but hasn't aged well (even with its more recent iterations).

I don't disagree. But CS was the first game, to my knowledge, that had closer-to-reality player health, first to have simultaneous possible objectives, first to have rounds in which each player only had one life, and first to have the players' item economy affected by supply and demand. I can't stand death match or team deathwatch, and capture the flag and area control got stale fast. The only multiplayer games I played seriously before CS were Aliens versus Predator, which was okay, and Aliens Online, which was mindblowing and fantastic (it was the first massively multiplayer shooter). Since then I've only put that much time into the Left 4 Dead series.

My favorite silly CS memory was on one of the assassination maps, there was one called oil rig. The terrorists began at the top of an oil platform, and the counter-terrorists and VIP at the bottom. CTs win if the VIP reached the top, and Ts if the VIP dies. One time as a terrorist, I started the round by climbing down the ladder to the central pool room, jumped off toward the pool far below, saw the VIP running along a platform above the pool, took a snap shot burst with my AK while falling, and popped the sucker in the head. Terrorists win! Yea me!

Of course, I largely stopped playing CS because of two things: radar, and another game called Urban Terror. I hated when they added radar to CS because a great deal of the fun had been attempting to communicate with the rest of your team where the heck they were. America's Army had a fascinating solution for this, having prelabelled every location on each map with a nickname and there being a button to send your location to the rest of your team. It was always important to bind that to your mouse wheel so everyone could constantly send it, so that if one person's reports stopped, you knew where the enemy was. Anyway, about the same time that CS added radar, another mod, Urban Terror, for Quake 3 Arena, came out, which was a CS copycat but let you climb stuff, and there were a few other good additions, though I can't remember now what else they were.

Ok, here we go...

1. I feel that Nintendo has not put out a great gaming system (with great games)since the SNES.
Sure there have been a few shining gems throughout the years on different platforms, but there never has been a Nintendo system that has had as many games as Sony or Microsoft that have peaked my interest. The only reasons I have ever purchased a Nintendo system are for games like Mario Kart, Donkey Kong Country, Metriod, and Zelda (although as of recent not so much). The lack of third party support just kills it for me, not to mention that I wish for once Nintendo would focus on keeping up with the graphical race as well as trying to be innovative with their tech.

2. I think the GTA series is highly overrated.
The story for most GTA's in my opinion is mostly blah, the controls are usually gawd awful, and there are only so many times I can just run around the city and cause mayhem before I get bored. Tighter controls, more RPG like mechanics, more weapons and a better story would mean the world to me.

3. I don't like the COD series or what it has done to the gaming market.
It's kept gaming exceedingly relevant in terms of sales and numbers, I get that. I don't however like how it has forced many developers to take the whole "action" route with genres that otherwise have no need for it (Resident Evil, Dead Space I'm looking at you). I think COD has become just a mindless shooter with a whole bunch of over-the-top scenarios that appeal to the mindless drone of a consumer. They also seem to shovel out the same game year after year with very few innovations or differences.

Aaaaaandd there we are

Dakuna wrote:

I have never finished the campaign in any CoD game, despite owning everything since MW1.
I have no interest in auto-aiming my way through robots for bad story and meaningless achievements. I play CoD solely for the multiplayer.

I'm the complete opposite of you on this. I only play the campaigns.

Getting berated and instakilled by some snot-nosed camper is not my idea of gaming time well spent. I checked out multiplayer in MW2 & 3 but, in 20 minutes, realized I didn't have tolerance for the dumbsh*t anymore.

Here's another one I didn't put down in my original post (which after reading it sounds more like complaints or venting than actual confessions... ah well):

I feel that Fallout is better than its sequel. It's a more compact experience, not as open, and therefore is more streamlined and concise. Fallout 2 got lengthy, which I know is supposed to be a good thing... but I feel like it got winded. Too much to do, which made the player lose his direction and focus.

The original was "Get in, find some water, kill some mutants, blow up the Overseer. Done." I love it.

I like reading this thread to see how wrong everyone is.

I have a simple reply to all of these:

billt721 wrote:

Mass Effect 1 was the only memorable game in the series.

Garden Ninja wrote:

I prefer to play shooters with a console.

jlaakso wrote:

Bioware does not have good writing.

the "morality" systems of most games are stupid.

GTAs are horrible to play.

gore wrote:

d) I can't stand Skyrim

nemebean wrote:

I don't like the grav gun.

EvilDead wrote:

Halo is a better First Person Shooter then Half Life

The Conformist wrote:

1. I feel that Nintendo has not put out a great gaming system (with great games)since the SNES.

2. I think the GTA series is highly overrated.

3. I don't like the COD series or what it has done to the gaming market.

Vrikk wrote:

I feel that Fallout is better than its sequel.

Reply: thank you Certis and Elysium for giving us a place where we can share the frustrations this favorite industry of ours gives us, to express what we suspect others feel, but which would not be well tolerated on any other gaming site.

Dyni wrote:
EvilDead wrote:

Halo is a better First Person Shooter then Half Life - From gun feel, weapon balance, audio feedback, to enemy AI, Halo is just more engaging as a shooter. Sure, Half life has some fun physics puzzles scattered throughout but the actual gun combat is just very bland. I don't play FPS games for story, I play them to have fun with the gunplay and AI (With the exception of Bioshock). Its time for a source engine makeover!

I love me some Half Life, but +1. Halo still has the best combat of any shooter around. Every encounter is engaging. I cant tell if the Halo hate on this site is primarily from stubborn PC only guys or a bunch of dudes that just don't like varied and interesting shooter combat. Either way, it puzzles me. Sorry GWJ, but the masses are right on this one.

Additional +1. Halo showed that Bungie's design philosophy of "Find 5 seconds of pure fun and repeat it" really does work. The way the game flows from sequence to sequence without ever losing your interest is still unique among shooters, for me. There's never a point in Halo where I really want to stop, in fact I have a hard time finding a good place to quit for the night.

This one just occurred to me last night - The Wii was the worst video game system I have owned, bar none. I'm not happy saying that, because it was a gift that I am eternally grateful for receiving, but compared to every other system I've owned it comes up very short, and I say this having owned an N64. The Wii cemented my decision to no longer be an avid Nintendo fan, and I don't regret that decision.

Keithustus wrote:

I have a simple reply to all of these:

Reply: thank you Certis and Elysium for giving us a place where we can share the frustrations this favorite industry of ours gives us, to express what we suspect others feel, but which would not be well tolerated on any other gaming site.

A whole lot of +1's to this statement. It is an amazing place that Certis and Elysium have created!

athros wrote:
Keithustus wrote:

I have a simple reply to all of these:

Reply: thank you Certis and Elysium for giving us a place where we can share the frustrations this favorite industry of ours gives us, to express what we suspect others feel, but which would not be well tolerated on any other gaming site.

A whole lot of +1's to this statement. It is an amazing place that Certis and Elysium have created!

You know, the only reason they made the site in the first place was to be able to keep track of who all the heretics are, so they can set you on fire later.

Also so they can run away with bags of money every year during the donation drive. Can't forget about that.

ahrezmendi wrote:

This one just occurred to me last night - The Wii was the worst video game system I have owned, bar none. I'm not happy saying that, because it was a gift that I am eternally grateful for receiving, but compared to every other system I've owned it comes up very short, and I say this having owned an N64. The Wii cemented my decision to no longer be an avid Nintendo fan, and I don't regret that decision.

I had a launch day Virtual Boy, so my worst system is probably (hopefully...) cemented for eternity.

Not that it's any kind of blasphemy.

RoughneckGeek wrote:
heavyfeul wrote:
Budo wrote:
heavyfeul wrote:

I bought Bayonetta and Heavenly Sword for reasons beyond just the game play.

You would love Catwoman in Arkham City. She has fantastic gameplay.

Way ahead of you.

I find that if I jerk off before I play a game I can pick games based on their quality rather than how perverted their character designs are.

IMAGE(http://shewhoprecedesmen.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/inconceivable_means_02.jpg)

Per·vert·ed
Adjective
1. (of a person or their actions) Characterized by sexually abnormal and unacceptable practices or tendencies.
2. (of a thing) Having been corrupted or distorted from its original course, meaning, or state.

heavyfeul wrote:
RoughneckGeek wrote:

I find that if I jerk off before I play a game I can pick games based on their quality rather than how perverted their character designs are.

Per·vert·ed
Adjective
1. (of a person or their actions) Characterized by sexually abnormal and unacceptable practices or tendencies.
2. (of a thing) Having been corrupted or distorted from its original course, meaning, or state.

I think definition 2 is absolutely appropriate given the context. Even if you regularly find yourself in Heff's living room, I suspect you don't see numerous women looking like Bayonetta, Ivy from Soul Calibur, etc. given how physically impossible many of them are. There was a blog done by a woman with a fine-arts background who analyzed game and comic depictions of women awhile back that showed the absurdity of these digitized "women".

Edit: Go Make Me a Sandwich: you should be able to find the original blog's game-imagery analysis through here. Click the "DOING IT WRONG" header.

That must explain it. I never found Ivy and Bayonetta to be particularly arousing or erotic characters. I know that they're meant to be, but they just don't do anything for me. They're on the part of the valley where you know they look natural, but they don't feel natural on some very deep level.

People find Ivy attractive?!

Dyni wrote:
ahrezmendi wrote:

This one just occurred to me last night - The Wii was the worst video game system I have owned, bar none. I'm not happy saying that, because it was a gift that I am eternally grateful for receiving, but compared to every other system I've owned it comes up very short, and I say this having owned an N64. The Wii cemented my decision to no longer be an avid Nintendo fan, and I don't regret that decision.

I had a launch day Virtual Boy, so my worst system is probably (hopefully...) cemented for eternity.

Not that it's any kind of blasphemy.

I think I have been lucky on worst consoles I have ever owned. It would be a almost a tie between N64, Genesis, and the original Gameboy. I would have to say that it was the Gameboy but even then it wasn't anything compared to the terribleness of the Wii or the VirtualBoy.

I had fun with my Virtual Boy. Maybe it's because I got it for $20 and had no expectations since it was already announced as discontinued. I'll need to dig that thing up next time I go back to my parents's house.

Keithustus wrote:
heavyfeul wrote:
RoughneckGeek wrote:

I find that if I jerk off before I play a game I can pick games based on their quality rather than how perverted their character designs are.

Per·vert·ed
Adjective
1. (of a person or their actions) Characterized by sexually abnormal and unacceptable practices or tendencies.
2. (of a thing) Having been corrupted or distorted from its original course, meaning, or state.

I think definition 2 is absolutely appropriate given the context. Even if you regularly find yourself in Heff's living room, I suspect you don't see numerous women looking like Bayonetta, Ivy from Soul Calibur, etc. given how physically impossible many of them are. There was a blog done by a woman with a fine-arts background who analyzed game and comic depictions of women awhile back that showed the absurdity of these digitized "women".

Edit: Go Make Me a Sandwich: you should be able to find the original blog's game-imagery analysis through here. Click the "DOING IT WRONG" header.

The same goes for men. There are plenty of unrealistic depictions of men in games, comics, movies, etc. I am certianly no Bruce Wayne/Batman. Far from it and I take no offense to women finding an artistic rendering of a billionaire vigilante with unrealistic muscular development sexy.

I find sexy depictions of women, to put it plainly, sexy. To suggest that is a perverversion is ridiculous to me. Plus, I am pretty sure the artists intended those depictions to be sexy, so definition 2 does not hold.

The same does not go for men.

Depictions of mega-muscled men are often representations of male hero/power fantasies. He is the hero, and by sharing in his experience (in your consumption of that media) you are the hero, too. They're not designed to be attractive to women. They're designed to be what they think men wish to be. They are men of action and they do things.

Women are designed in silly and contorted poses to show as much tits and ass as possible in every scene. They're designed to be ogled and consumed. They're present as sexual fantasy. They're objects that are there to titillate male audiences.

Both male and female characters are misrepresentations. Barbie is to girls what Bruce Wayne is to boys. There's still a comparison to be made.