Seibertron.com Energon Pub Forums

cotss2012 wrote:But how well did the multi-gun-carrying system work with the standard N64 controller? How well did traditional healing work with the four-save limit?

Pretty well, being as how you'd press a button to switch between weapons, or if you were playing perfect dark, you could just hold down the B button and select the weapon right away.
Healing didn't really have anything to do with a four game save limit. Do you want to know why developers today don't allow you unlimited saves?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xt2uyDqbA-Q

Aside from save scumming, you don't really NEED more than 4 saves.

cotss2012 wrote:But could you do stuff that had no relevance to the objectives at hand? Could you make prank phone calls and kick enemies' heads around like soccer balls like in Blood? Serious question, not rhetorical. I've never played those games.

Once again, these are game design decisions. They are perfectly capable of being done on consoles, as well as PCs.

Tweezy wrote:

cotss2012 wrote:But how well did the multi-gun-carrying system work with the standard N64 controller? How well did traditional healing work with the four-save limit?

Pretty well, being as how you'd press a button to switch between weapons, or if you were playing perfect dark, you could just hold down the B button and select the weapon right away.
Healing didn't really have anything to do with a four game save limit. Do you want to know why developers today don't allow you unlimited saves?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xt2uyDqbA-Q

Aside from save scumming, you don't really NEED more than 4 saves.

One particular line from that, though, which sums up the idea to use only a small amount of saves:

There is no skill in replaying the same thing over and reloading save states over and over again.

On the upside: I got a hell of a chuckle out of "Now this is a TRUE instrument of destruction" and "Spare me this mockery of justice".

All in all, I'm finding that although WFC doesn't hold a candle to the top PC shooters of the System Shock through Quake IV era, it's quite a bit better than every other watered-down-for-consoles shooter that I've played. True, Soundwave is too verbose, and I never have any idea what each weapon's maximum ammo capacity is, and I'm annoyed by my character constantly obscuring A QUARTER OF THE DAMN SCREEN, but I'm still having fun, which is something that I most definitely could not say about F.E.A.R., Crysis, Bioshock, or Madness Returns.

Shadowman wrote:You're right about LAN support, but how many online games don't require you to create an account?

I dunno, but I do remember that I never had to create an account for Elite Force, which is the only non-role-playing game that I have clear memories of playing over the Interwebs. I also never had to create an online account to play against bots in UT2004 or Westwood's (i.e., the only canon) Command & Conquer games.

Shadowman wrote:I know the last leg of Half-Life 2 (And the first leg of HL2: Episode 1) involved using enemies and bits of environment as ammunition. Ooh, and the Ghostbusters game, in which obliterating the environment was practically a gameplay mechanic. Also Just Cause 2, where the entire game is "Find something that hasn't exploded, and make it explode." And the Arkham games, in particular the Riddler Challenges, which involve digging through the environment to find things.

Those aren't the games that I asked about, but since you brought them up, HL2 was from before FPS games started getting neutered, and Ghostbusters didn't have much environmental interactivity beyond the occasional use of the slime grappling mechanism. I haven't played those other games.

More to the point, how much stuff in the environment can be played with in a way that doesn't advance the game and doesn't involve destroying them?

Tweezy wrote:Pretty well, being as how you'd press a button to switch between weapons, or if you were playing perfect dark, you could just hold down the B button and select the weapon right away.

So you could press "b", and the console would read your mind and know exactly which weapon you wanted to switch to?

Tweezy wrote:Healing didn't really have anything to do with a four game save limit. Do you want to know why developers today don't allow you unlimited saves?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xt2uyDqbA-Q

Because they're dicks?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=in6RZzdGki8

Anyway, more to the point, "Halo healing" is indeed a consequence of eliminating a true save function in favor of the inferior checkpoint system. It has the effect of making small mistakes not matter. If you win a fight, it doesn't really matter how much damage you took, because it's all wiped out afterward. Your aim sucks and the other sniper got you first? Doesn't matter, he's dead now, and you'll start the next fight at full health or shields or ego or whatever. That kind of healing system encourages sloppy play for the sake of making it easier to get through long sections of the game without saving.

Tweezy wrote:Once again, these are game design decisions. They are perfectly capable of being done on consoles, as well as PCs.

That's true. I guess that lack of interactivity is really more of a holdover from the Halo era than a result of restrictions imposed by modern consoles.

Shadowman wrote:There is no skill in replaying the same thing over and reloading save states over and over again.

How interesting, because it's actually the checkpoint system, not the traditional save system, that forces repetitive gameplay. Instead of fighting a particularly hard battle over and over until I get it right, I have to cut my way through hordes of smaller enemies AND jump through the smashy stompy things AND do the hard fight over and over again until I get the last one right. Where is the benefit in forcing me to replay the parts of the game that I have already mastered?

cotss2012 wrote:Those aren't the games that I asked about, but since you brought them up, HL2 was from before FPS games started getting neutered

Let's analyze that. Now, you say Halo was the start of FPSs being "neutered?" Half-Life 2 was released about a week AFTER Halo 2. So HL2 was released before FPSs games were "neutered" but after FPS games were "neutered."

cotss2012 wrote:More to the point, how much stuff in the environment can be played with in a way that doesn't advance the game and doesn't involve destroying them?

In Just Cause 2, you get a grappling hook. It doubles as a tether. There are few things you CAN'T tether together. Tether an enemy to a car? They encourage that. Tether a car to a helicopter? I don't see why not. Tether a helicopter to a jet? Now we're cooking with gas. Tether a gas tank that tends to fly off like a rocket before exploding to an enemy, causing that enemy to be lifted into the air and flown around before exploding? Jackpot. There's even an achievement for attaching a large object to the back of your car, then driving around so that the object swings around and kills people.

You can also paint funny mustaches on billboards.

cotss2012 wrote:How interesting, because it's actually the checkpoint system, not the traditional save system, that forces repetitive gameplay. Instead of fighting a particularly hard battle over and over until I get it right, I have to cut my way through hordes of smaller enemies AND jump through the smashy stompy things AND do the hard fight over and over again until I get the last one right. Where is the benefit in forcing me to replay the parts of the game that I have already mastered?

Man up and learn to play. You shouldn't have to use save scumming to get along.

cotss2012 wrote:All in all, I'm finding that although WFC doesn't hold a candle to the top PC shooters of the System Shock through Quake IV era

War for Cybertron is a different kind of game from system shock and quake IV. There are different gameplay mechanics, and different strategies to be employed. It's like comparing apples and oranges.

cotss2012 wrote:More to the point, how much stuff in the environment can be played with in a way that doesn't advance the game and doesn't involve destroying them?

Once again, this is something that has nothing to do with it being on a console.

cotss2012 wrote:So you could press "b", and the console would read your mind and know exactly which weapon you wanted to switch to?

Yes, that is exactly what I meant. I certainly did not allude to the B button cycling through the weapons you have in your inventory.

cotss2012 wrote:Anyway, more to the point, "Halo healing" is indeed a consequence of eliminating a true save function in favor of the inferior checkpoint system. It has the effect of making small mistakes not matter. If you win a fight, it doesn't really matter how much damage you took, because it's all wiped out afterward. Your aim sucks and the other sniper got you first? Doesn't matter, he's dead now, and you'll start the next fight at full health or shields or ego or whatever. That kind of healing system encourages sloppy play for the sake of making it easier to get through long sections of the game without saving.

What a nightmare, the devs thought to make the game a little less arbitrarily challenging.

cotss2012 wrote:How interesting, because it's actually the checkpoint system, not the traditional save system, that forces repetitive gameplay. Instead of fighting a particularly hard battle over and over until I get it right, I have to cut my way through hordes of smaller enemies AND jump through the smashy stompy things AND do the hard fight over and over again until I get the last one right. Where is the benefit in forcing me to replay the parts of the game that I have already mastered?

There's really no difference aside from the distance needed to cross before proceeding. In both instances, you die and reload from an earlier point. The key here is that the game does it automatically, so you don't have to trek even further when you forget to save.

Shadowman wrote:Man up and learn to play. You shouldn't have to use save scumming to get along.

Save scumming? This is a new term to me. So was auto spamming, but I learned that quickly. People hate it when you use tier 2 weapons in VS in L4D (and 2).

I'm a PC gamer, but for various reasons:

1.) Cost. Cards can be expensive, but I've limped around for years on a GT 220 1 GIG and I'll keep running it until it dies. I won't upgrade until I'm forced to. Console gaming can be expensive due to the cost of the system, the games and the network. On PC, I don't have to pay $50-60, I can wait for the price to drop to a manageable level. Plus Steam doesn't charge a fee to connect.

2.) HD this and that. While pretty, can be costly. I have a couple of old school CRT monitors laying around. Low def? Sure, but still work if need be. I realize you don't need HD to make the PS3 and 360 work, but you lose a LOT of the experience in SD.

3.) Servers. If a server goes down, there's always a 3rd party to take it's place. Whereas I've heard of console games losing their servers altogether, permanently.

Console gaming is by no means simplistic or silly. Quite the opposite, in fact. It's easier to program for, it's accepted by a wider audience, it's accessible to people of all ages. That's pretty huge, you can't deny the impact that console gaming provides. My list borders more on practicality rather than bias, though I admit that the Wii left a horrible impression and I haven't gone back to console gaming since. (Other than getting a GameCube for my favorite classic games.)

I think PC gaming does tend to lend itself to pompous elitists, which angers me to no end. Plus, players can jimmy the games and make the experience unpleasant for everyone. Not to mention, no cross platform gaming (which really sucks).

I look at it this way: There's an option for everyone and everyone should be able to play. Screw the rest of it.

Autobot032 wrote:

Shadowman wrote:Man up and learn to play. You shouldn't have to use save scumming to get along.

Save scumming? This is a new term to me.

It means saving a ton of times so the game goes from being about skill to being about trial-and-error. Tweezy posted a video earlier in the thread showing off an example. A lot of devs tend to find ways to disallow it. Most games just use checkpoints and auto-saves instead of regular saving, others won't allow saving during certain situations (Like combat) or the traditional Save Point, which is like a checkpoint in a lot of ways except I have to manually activate it.

Autobot032 wrote:People hate it when you use tier 2 weapons in VS in L4D (and 2).

Well I hate getting pounced, or covered in bile, or choked, or charged, or forced into noxious acid, or pummeled with a giant rock, or whatever verb I should use for the Witch, (I want to say eviscerated but that just doesn't seem quite right) but you don't hear me complaining.

Well, you do, quite loudly. But usually I do it humorously.

Shadowman wrote:

Autobot032 wrote:

Shadowman wrote:Man up and learn to play. You shouldn't have to use save scumming to get along.

Save scumming? This is a new term to me.

It means saving a ton of times so the game goes from being about skill to being about trial-and-error. Tweezy posted a video earlier in the thread showing off an example. A lot of devs tend to find ways to disallow it. Most games just use checkpoints and auto-saves instead of regular saving, others won't allow saving during certain situations (Like combat) or the traditional Save Point, which is like a checkpoint in a lot of ways except I have to manually activate it.

Ah! Done it. lol Will do so again, if possible. lol

Shadowman wrote:

Autobot032 wrote:People hate it when you use tier 2 weapons in VS in L4D (and 2).

Well I hate getting pounced, or covered in bile, or choked, or charged, or forced into noxious acid, or pummeled with a giant rock, or whatever verb I should use for the Witch, (I want to say eviscerated but that just doesn't seem quite right) but you don't hear me complaining.

Well, you do, quite loudly. But usually I do it humorously.

Exactly. I stumped the entire VS game, all 8 people, when I said "Well, the whole point is to win, at any cost, using the weapons provided to you. Tier 2, included." That just shut everyone up.

Can I make it with the Uzi or the pump shotgun and two pistols? Sure. Limits my chances of success, though. Why be limited because someone's all whiny?

They're right, that if you have the skill, you have no need for the Tier 2s. It could also be argued that a Tier 2 can't stop you, no matter what special you're playing, if you're just that much better than your opponent.

Autobot032 wrote:Ah! Done it. lol Will do so again, if possible. lol

In some situations it's fine, like if you think you're about to make some kind of mistake that could alter the rest of the game. Like a conversation going particularly wrong, or a one-time-only item you don't want to miss. But if you need it to beat the game, then you should probably get better at the game.

cotss2012 going to ed and copying their arguments and content does not argument make.

Shadowman wrote:Let's analyze that. Now, you say Halo was the start of FPSs being "neutered?"

No. Halo (2001) was simply a template upon which the neutered PC games from 2006 onward would model themselves.

Shadowman wrote:In Just Cause 2, you get a grappling hook. It doubles as a tether. There are few things you CAN'T tether together. Tether an enemy to a car? They encourage that. Tether a car to a helicopter? I don't see why not. Tether a helicopter to a jet? Now we're cooking with gas. Tether a gas tank that tends to fly off like a rocket before exploding to an enemy, causing that enemy to be lifted into the air and flown around before exploding? Jackpot. There's even an achievement for attaching a large object to the back of your car, then driving around so that the object swings around and kills people.

You can also paint funny mustaches on billboards.

That's one of the most awesome things I've ever heard.

Shadowman wrote:Man up and learn to play.

Also, I recorded all of the following gameplay footage myself, without ever taking damage, so don't tell me that I need to learn how to play:

cotss2012 wrote:

Shadowman wrote:Let's analyze that. Now, you say Halo was the start of FPSs being "neutered?"

No. Halo (2001) was simply a template upon which the neutered PC games from 2006 onward would model themselves.

So...wait, I'm confused. Halo came out in 2001, but the effects it would have on the game industry wouldn't take effect until 2006, five years after the fact, and two years after Halo 2 came out, and less than one year into the current generation? Does this kind of delayed popularity make sense to you?

cotss2012 wrote:

Shadowman wrote:Man up and learn to play.

I did. That's why I'm not the one complaining about the difficulty.

cotss2012 wrote:Also, I recorded all of the following gameplay footage myself, without ever taking damage, so don't tell me that I need to learn how to play:

Wow, four WHOLE minutes of not taking damage in Doom 3? That would be really impressive if it wasn't 10 second clips, of things I've already done myself, during my last three playthroughs of Doom 3.

That video doesn't show you have skills, just that you can edit a video of you save scumming.

I think this thread's going to get out of hand. Why does this stuff even have to get posted? Sometimes, it's better left unsaid.

Shadowman wrote:So...wait, I'm confused. Halo came out in 2001, but the effects it would have on the game industry wouldn't take effect until 2006, five years after the fact, and two years after Halo 2 came out, and less than one year into the current generation? Does this kind of delayed popularity make sense to you?

It has nothing to do with popularity. It was also a gradual process; Blood II, released back in 1998, had more guns than it had weapon slots, forcing you to ditch some; however, we're talking about like 14 guns and 10 slots...

That's why I'm not the one complaining about the difficulty.

Who is?

cotss2012 wrote:Wow, four WHOLE minutes of not taking damage in Doom 3? That would be really impressive if it wasn't 10 second clips, of things I've already done myself, during my last three playthroughs of Doom 3.

You've taken down a Hell Knight in four shotgun blasts, Pinky in two, Skeletor in two, and a giant land whale in five, all without taking damage?

That video doesn't show you have skills

Actually, it does. Some of those feats are extremely difficult.

cotss2012 wrote:

That's why I'm not the one complaining about the difficulty.

Who is?

You are, remember? You were complaining about how bits of WfC were too hard, and you had to do them over when you died in one of the most simple fights in the game. (From the sounds of things, the Zeta Prime fight? That's not even really a fight)

cotss2012 wrote:

Wow, four WHOLE minutes of not taking damage in Doom 3? That would be really impressive if it wasn't 10 second clips, of things I've already done myself, during my last three playthroughs of Doom 3.

You've taken down a Hell Knight in four shotgun blasts, Pinky in two, Skeletor in two, and a giant land whale in five, all without taking damage?

Yep. Except for Skeletor and the whale, those two are best left to He-Man and Captain Ahab. I did take down plenty of Revenants and Cacodemons doing that, though. I even got them to fight each other for me. A tricky tactic but one that's really fun nonetheless.

cotss2012 wrote:

That video doesn't show you have skills

Actually, it does. Some of those feats are extremely difficult.

Which is why you saved immediately before, then reloaded until you got it perfect, then edited out all of your failures.

Whoa, there's a whole mess of not-yet-responded-to crap on page 2 that wasn't there the last few times I posted here! Let's fix that...

Tweezy wrote:War for Cybertron is a different kind of game from system shock and quake IV. There are different gameplay mechanics, and different strategies to be employed.

Yeah, first-person shooters and third-person shooters are so different

Tweezy wrote:Yes, that is exactly what I meant. I certainly did not allude to the B button cycling through the weapons you have in your inventory.

"Select the weapon right away" and "cycling through the weapons you have in your inventory" are mutually exclusive methods of weapon-selection, except for when your current weapon and the one being selected are right next to each other in the cycle.

Tweezy wrote:What a nightmare, the devs thought to make the game a little less arbitrarily challenging.

They made it less skill-dependent.

Tweezy wrote:There's really no difference aside from the distance needed to cross before proceeding. In both instances, you die and reload from an earlier point. The key here is that the game does it automatically, so you don't have to trek even further when you forget to save.

No, the key is that I am being stripped of the ability to decide what earlier point I'd like to reload from.

Shadowman wrote:or the traditional Save Point, which is like a checkpoint in a lot of ways except I have to manually activate it.

Ah, Diablo II, my first experience with a crap worthless inferior save system...

Dead Metal wrote:cotss2012 going to ed and copying their arguments and content does not argument make.

ed who? The Scissorhands guy? I don't think he has an opinion on the matter.

Shadowman wrote:You are, remember? You were complaining about how bits of WfC were too hard, and you had to do them over when you died in one of the most simple fights in the game. (From the sounds of things, the Zeta Prime fight? That's not even really a fight)

Dude, what the bloody hell are you talking about? Zeta Prime was a pussy. Orders of magnitude easier than a certain part of Madness Returns that I actually was complaining about (and even then, I wasn't complaining about the difficulty of the fight so much as the repetitive bullshit that I had to go through to get to the fight every time I died because of the CRAP WORTHLESS STUPID CHECKPOINT SYSTEM).

Shadowman wrote:Yep. Except for Skeletor and the whale

In other words, half of the monsters I mentioned. So no.

Shadowman wrote:Which is why you saved immediately before, then reloaded until you got it perfect, then edited out all of your failures

To "edit them out", they'd need to have been in first. Actually, there was one failure: I took some damage at the end of Martian Chainsaw Massacre...

cotss2012 wrote:

Tweezy wrote:War for Cybertron is a different kind of game from system shock and quake IV. There are different gameplay mechanics, and different strategies to be employed.

Yeah, first-person shooters and third-person shooters are so different

If you think the only difference between System Shock and WfC is camera angle, then you have clearly haven't played either game. It's not even apples and oranges, it's more like comparing apples to a car.

cotss2012 wrote:They made it less skill-dependent.

Yeah, because save scumming requires so much more skill.

cotss2012 wrote:No, the key is that I am being stripped of the ability to decide what earlier point I'd like to reload from.

Boo hoo, you have to redo a fight or two. Man up and do it.

cotss2012 wrote:

Shadowman wrote:or the traditional Save Point, which is like a checkpoint in a lot of ways except I have to manually activate it.

Ah, Diablo II, my first experience with a crap worthless inferior save system...

Diablo II didn't use save points so I don't know why you're bringing that up. I mean, you know, save points. Like in Symphony of the Night, Metroid II onwards, Final Fantasy IV onwards, Resident Evil, Silent Hill, Grand Theft Auto, etc. You know, games that I've played because I'm smart enough not to limit myself to one system?

Except Silent Hill. I never actually played Silent Hill.

cotss2012 wrote:

Dead Metal wrote:cotss2012 going to ed and copying their arguments and content does not argument make.

ed who? The Scissorhands guy? I don't think he has an opinion on the matter.

Encyclopedia Dramatica. The site you've been taking all of your arguments from.

cotss2012 wrote:

Shadowman wrote:You are, remember? You were complaining about how bits of WfC were too hard, and you had to do them over when you died in one of the most simple fights in the game. (From the sounds of things, the Zeta Prime fight? That's not even really a fight)

Dude, what the bloody hell are you talking about? Zeta Prime was a pussy. Orders of magnitude easier than a certain part of Madness Returns that I actually was complaining about (and even then, I wasn't complaining about the difficulty of the fight so much as the repetitive bullshit that I had to go through to get to the fight every time I died because of the CRAP WORTHLESS STUPID CHECKPOINT SYSTEM).

Now what the bloody hell are you talking about? Between the Autobot Tank and the actual fight with Zeta, there isn't even any combat. The Tank is the last real challenge of the chapter, and if you think to bring along a nucleon shock cannon, even that isn't a challenge. So I don't know what you had a problem with.

cotss2012 wrote:To "edit them out", they'd need to have been in first. Actually, there was one failure: I took some damage at the end of Martian Chainsaw Massacre...

All I have to go on is your word, and if I've learned anything, it's that your word isn't a particularly good source to go on. So, save scumming.

Also because I've seen a million videos like that, of kids editing out all their failures to make themselves look better.

cotss2012 wrote:Yeah, first-person shooters and third-person shooters are so different

This is typically the case, third person shooters make use of the different camera angle to employ different control styles and to allow for more interesting attack animations. Not to mention the platforming aspect that becomes far more prominent than in a first person game.

cotss2012 wrote:"Select the weapon right away" and "cycling through the weapons you have in your inventory" are mutually exclusive methods of weapon-selection, except for when your current weapon and the one being selected are right next to each other in the cycle.

It must be so hard to switch between weapons and spend an extra second or two to find the weapon you want

cotss2012 wrote:They made it less skill-dependent.

then up the difficulty level and grenade yourself whenever you feel like you should have died.

cotss2012 wrote:No, the key is that I am being stripped of the ability to decide what earlier point I'd like to reload from.

Well boo hoo, so you can't savescum, big deal. Most games tend to checkpoint before and after hard parts anyway.

cotss2012 wrote:I wasn't complaining about the difficulty of the fight so much as the repetitive bullshit that I had to go through to get to the fight every time I died because of the CRAP WORTHLESS STUPID CHECKPOINT SYSTEM).

Woah, calm down there, son.

Shadowman wrote:

cotss2012 wrote:

That's why I'm not the one complaining about the difficulty.

Who is?

You are, remember? You were complaining about how bits of WfC were too hard, and you had to do them over when you died in one of the most simple fights in the game. (From the sounds of things, the Zeta Prime fight? That's not even really a fight)

To be fair, WFC did have a lot of random ass parts that are harder than the rest of the game. There are at least 3 I can think of in the Arielbot's level alone. One I can think of in the Death of Hope level, and the Zeta Prime fight is sometimes hard and sometimes it's easy. The difficulty in WFC is unbalanced in my experience...

SlyTF1 wrote:

Shadowman wrote:

cotss2012 wrote:

That's why I'm not the one complaining about the difficulty.

Who is?

You are, remember? You were complaining about how bits of WfC were too hard, and you had to do them over when you died in one of the most simple fights in the game. (From the sounds of things, the Zeta Prime fight? That's not even really a fight)

To be fair, WFC did have a lot of random ass parts that are harder than the rest of the game. There are at least 3 I can think of in the Arielbot's level alone. One I can think of in the Death of Hope level, and the Zeta Prime fight is sometimes hard and sometimes it's easy. The difficulty in WFC is unbalanced in my experience...

That Aerialbot level's beginning was incredibly frustrating.

JetOptimus23 wrote:That Aerialbot level's beginning was incredibly frustrating.

I have to disagree, I actually really like that part. Any extended driving or flying sections, really.

Shadowman wrote:If you think the only difference between System Shock and WfC is camera angle, then you have clearly haven't played either game. It's not even apples and oranges, it's more like comparing apples to a car.

I admit that I never played System Shock, but I've played as much Bioshock as I could handle before falling asleep, and I found - remarkably - that the gameplay in both BS and WFC consisted primarily of walking around through rooms and corridors while shooting or hitting things, occasionally punctuated by the need to pick something up or push a button.

Shadowman wrote:Yeah, because save scumming requires so much more skill.

The parts between saves do require skill - much more so than the Halo Healing approach.

Shadowman wrote:Boo hoo, you have to redo a fight or two. Man up and do it.

It's not the fight that I hate redoing. I already made that clear twice.

Shadowman wrote:Diablo II didn't use save points so I don't know why you're bringing that up. I mean, you know, save points. Like in Symphony of the Night, Metroid II onwards, Final Fantasy IV onwards, Resident Evil, Silent Hill, Grand Theft Auto, etc.

Never played them.

Shadowman wrote:Encyclopedia Dramatica. The site you've been taking all of your arguments from.

No, sorry, I've never spent any significant amount of time there. If people there are pointing out the same things that I am, then it's because people who know what they're talking about tend to come to similar conclusions.

Shadowman wrote:Now what the bloody hell are you talking about? Between the Autobot Tank and the actual fight with Zeta, there isn't even any combat. The Tank is the last real challenge of the chapter, and if you think to bring along a nucleon shock cannon, even that isn't a challenge. So I don't know what you had a problem with.

I had a problem fighting a walking teapot, a black slime monster, and three mosquito-spawner things at the same time after navigating a bunch of smashy stompy things in the Mad Hatter's realm in Madness Returns. Why you keep talking about Zeta Prime?

Shadowman wrote:All I have to go on is your word, and if I've learned anything, it's that your word isn't a particularly good source to go on.

Tweezy wrote:This is typically the case, third person shooters make use of the different camera angle to employ different control styles

Well, WFC and both Alice games employed the WASD system, so I'm not sure what you're getting at there.

Tweezy wrote:It must be so hard to switch between weapons and spend an extra second or two to find the weapon you want

When you can't heal back up to full health every time you manage to avoid getting shot at for a few seconds, then that time spent cycling between weapons can really cost you.

Tweezy wrote:then up the difficulty level and grenade yourself whenever you feel like you should have died.

(has fond memories of Warthog Jump)

Tweezy wrote:Well boo hoo, so you can't savescum, big deal

Being forced to run and jump through the smashy stompy things for ten goddamn minutes every time the teapot kills me IS a big deal.

Tweezy wrote:Woah, calm down there, son.

Yes, mommy.

JetOptimus23 wrote:That Aerialbot level's beginning was incredibly frustrating.

The only part of episode IX that I found frustrating was when Trypticon was falling down to Cybertron and I had to dodge the missiles, but had absolutely no way of knowing how far I could go in each direction, or even whether I was really moving at all.

Shadowman wrote:I have to disagree, I actually really like that part. Any extended driving or flying sections, really.

I did love jumping off ramps, transforming in midair, and swinging my mace/axe around as soon as I hit the ground...

cotss2012 wrote:

Shadowman wrote:If you think the only difference between System Shock and WfC is camera angle, then you have clearly haven't played either game. It's not even apples and oranges, it's more like comparing apples to a car.

I admit that I never played System Shock, but I've played as much Bioshock as I could handle before falling asleep, and I found - remarkably - that the gameplay in both BS and WFC consisted primarily of walking around through rooms and corridors while shooting or hitting things, occasionally punctuated by the need to pick something up or push a button.

After recovering from facepalming so hard I blacked out, I've come to realize I'm actually very glad that you said this. It means you don't know what you're talking about, at all. Everything you've posted so far is now completely undone by this one, blatantly wrong statement. And it's not a matter of opinion anymore, you have walked right into the realm of Fact, and you are wrong. Game over, man.

cotss2012 wrote:

Shadowman wrote:Diablo II didn't use save points so I don't know why you're bringing that up. I mean, you know, save points. Like in Symphony of the Night, Metroid II onwards, Final Fantasy IV onwards, Resident Evil, Silent Hill, Grand Theft Auto, etc.

Never played them.

Yikes. I'd have thought you would have played a few of those. I know I have.

To be fair, I couldn't force myself to go beyond the Medical Pavilion, so I probably missed something.

cotss2012 wrote:To be fair, I couldn't force myself to go beyond the Medical Pavilion, so I probably missed something.

You missed everything. From the sound of it, you never even got on the plane. So you never played it, or you did play it but you really did think they were similar. I hope it's the latter, since that would mean I can now read everything you have to say with the knowledge that you don't really know what it is you're saying.