Eedo Baba

Many mods already do this on PC, only the very hardcore enjoy it. I could perhaps see something like the ARMA series having a hardcore mode similar to what you suggest though. Also- You've played games online so you should know that this would never work in a pub. lol, well I wasn't talking about online gaming actually. I'm very aware that an average public server would in no way be coordinated enough to handle it. I was thinking more along the lines of a single player game where you can take command of a squad of soldiers and give them complex commands. Also, I didn't intend it to imply a simple difficulty spike. That would simply be making the game harder, which isn't what I meant. I mean to actually design a game around these principles. Perhaps you could switch between members of your squad at will, and when your player character died you assumed the role of a different soldier in your squad, so that the difficulty of the mission would grow as your team dwindles, with less resources to plan a strategy. Perhaps each member of your team could have a specialty, so doing something cocky as one team member would be risking an important asset to the team. If the guy with the rocket launcher runs up to take out a tank and gets shot down in the process, you'll have to complete your mission without that resource. Actually, if the teammates were coordinated enough, it *could* work as a co-op game if one side was A.I. Just letting ideas flow.

Well, that's what you think before someone decides to innovate. Look at the platformer. In 1990 it was strictly limited to a definition including only 2D sidescrollers. Crash Bandicoot and Mario 64 completely changed that. And I'd say there's a lot of things to change. For example, the shooter as we know it allows you to get shots several times and eventually walk it off, be it through regenerating health or a medkit. What if games started using realistic consequences for injury? Like, getting hit in the leg would be a massive blow to your movement speed and rapidly drain your overall health from bleeding, getting hit in the arm would possibly limit your use of guns to a sidearm in the other hand, and getting hit in the chest or head would be a one hit kill. It would completely change the way a shooter is played. Gameplay would no longer be about jumping out of cover and spraying fire, It would be about precise, tactical use of cover and distraction. Like, using part of your team for covering fire, while a strike force flanks the enemy.

Someone needs to make a new kind of shooter. I mean, consider we've really been playing the same basic style of tps and fps games for the last 5 to 10 years. They might have mixed elements of different genres in, or been innovative in different ways, but no new shooter mechanics have really ever been invented in the last 5 years or so. I mean, can anyone think of anything? And I'm not talking about weapons or powers that expound on the shooter mechanics, I mean new shooter mechanics.

2KvfC996rLU

Have you used a PS3? Unless it's exclusive PS3 is usually the worst version of the game, even though the PS3 is more powerful than the Xbox 360 in theory. I mean, PS3 can't even use Directx due to it being MS software. You shouldn't feel sorry for PS3 gamers this year, you should feel sorry for every one that's bought a PS3 since release, if it weren't for the exclusives that are usually high quality and the Blu-ray player then the PS3 would be the most expensive, and worst console you could buy. Skyrim is the only bad port I've played this year actually, and in total I got 13 ps3 games in 2011. Portal 2, LA Noire, Batman Arkham City, Rocksmith, Assassin's Creed Revelations, Rage, Deus Ex Human Revolution, Driver San Francisco... All of them multiplatform, and none of them had any problems on ps3. Saying the ps3 is hard to develop for is obviously an excuse, if so many developers can do it just fine. And saying that ps3 is the worst console is just silly man. That might have been true in 2006, but ps3 is becoming the dominant console in multiplatform development. PS3 is already outselling 360, and it shows in how many great games are coming out.

Well, I'd agree with your ideas in theory. But currently, I'd gladly throw away my copy of Skyrim for the fact it doesn't function like it should. Meanwhile, I'm having tons-a-fun in Uncharted 3's co-op. I'd say actual quality trumps any sort of marketing weirdness like online passes.

Thought I'd share my problems with Skyrim on PS3. PC and 360 players seem to be misunderstanding the hugeness of the problems. The first problem I had (and many, many others did) was the lag. I actually had this problem the FIRST DAY I played the game. Playing the game for 7 hours, lag appeared in relatively small doses. Walking around town was a chore because of the slowdown, but it was certainly playable at that point. Over the next week, the slowdown got horrible. It made the game unplayable. This was around 30 hours in, and the game would drop down to 0 fps regularly, hovering around 20fps at the best times. Then they released the first patch, I believe on the 18th of November. This seemed to fix the framerate problems for the most part, but most of us couldn't imagine the trouble this patch would cause down the line. By 70 hours in, the game started occasionally crashing. By 80 hours in, the crashes would regularly occur after maybe 5 hours gameplay. By 116 hours in, crashes made the game unplayable just as the lag had. The game would crash five minutes into playing the game. I've since tried remedies as temporary fixes. There was the trick to wait 24 hours 30 times, a process that takes way longer than it's even nearly worth. There was the trick to turn off all autosave systems completely, which is much less practical than you might think, and it only postpones the crashing by an hour now. The game is broken. Estimates on when these problems will be fixed are estimated at January to February. That's FOUR MONTHS after the release of the game. Having to wait four months after release for the game to work properly is probably the worst customer service they could have possibly given PS3 owners, barring coming to our houses and smashing our PS3s with hammers. Oh, that reminds me! After the first patch, there have been multiple reports of the crashes BRICKING CONSOLES. I guess they really want to break our ps3's, and bricking them remotely is more efficient than the hammer idea... So yeah, at this point, I'm afraid to start up Skyrim with the fear that it could destroy my PS3. Even if I did start it, it would inevitably crash within an hour, despite my best, most desperate efforts to stop it. THANKS, BETHESDA

It's like what GLaDOS does with your one room full of air... Here's an interesting fact: you're not playing a new game. It's too expensive to make a game from scratch. We just take the first game, freshen it up a little, and put it back on the shelf. So you'll be playing the same game for the rest of your life. I thought that was interesting. I was doing some research on game publishers for an upcoming test. Do you know what company would release the same game year after year and continue to make billions of dollars in revenue? No one. No one but Activision is that pointlessly cruel.

Ah, I think I get what they're doing. They release new items and they're intentionally veeeery OP. This makes more people want to get them, which increases the store sales. When the dust settles, they nerf the weapons.

Oh yeah, one other thing. I hate it when there's a filter on the screen when your health is low, and that filter obscures the action so much that it makes it hard to play. The last thing I need when I'm about to die is the screen going blurry and shaky. Just bad game design.

WOW, you're completely right. With that wrench, the only kills Engi would be susceptible to would be 1 hit surprises like headshots and backstabs. And that flamethrower, it's like they think the Pyros have it too hard with the backburner... I still have no idea if they're going to be using any of my user-submitted weapons this week, but if they do, I can only hope that they aren't so offensively OP.

Oh look, Uncharted 3 is being neglected just like I said it would. Not blaming anyone, but it sucks how very few people here seem to have played what I consider to be the best game on the list, because of the platform. (Brofist to the one other person who voted for it. )

I like it when games are comprised majorly of cutscenes. I find them fun to watch. I like it even more when a game smoothly combines cutscenes and gameplay (and no, I don't mean quicktime events). Oh yeah, things I don't like. Being given no direction at all? I like to be lightly funneled towards my objective. I don't like to have no idea what to do. And don't think I dislike games like Skyrim. In those games, the idea is that you can acquire quests that are all pretty linear. What I don't like is when there's one option to progress the game, yet the game gives you know clues as to what that is.

AlFtgSPxVik

1. Uncharted 3 2. Portal 2 3. Skyrim Skyrim is bumped down to 3rd from the fact that it's literally a completely broken game. On my ps3, I'm 110 hours in, and when I start it up now, 5 minutes in it crashes, no joke. Bethesda deserves ALL the criticism they're getting for not delaying the PS3 release to fix these issues. The fact that this issue ever occurred on a released copy of the game says a lot about how shoddy the playtesting and management of Skyrim was. Anyway, Portal 2 and Uncharted 3 are such brilliant games that it's hard to choose. The absolute amazing detail put into the development of Uncharted 3 really shows, and the same can really be said for Portal 2, though in different ways. Portal 2 and Uncharted 3 are so similar really. They both come from developers that are willing to put the time and effort necessary to make the best game possible, they have a charming sense of humor, and the games themselves have game designs that somehow never get old. Placing Uncharted 3 above Portal 2 is really almost arbitrary, because I love both of them so much. In the end, I opted for Uncharted 3 because I knew it would be neglected a bit in the votes, despite how great a game it is, because this is a mainly PC gaming forum. For those non-ps3 gamers who just don't get the hype behind Uncharted, let me try to explain as best I can. Uncharted is an adventure (not the adventure genre), in the most classic way possible. You're following one character through a journey that's breathtaking, spectacular and intriguing. I remember I once tried to explain to a friend of mine who had just gotten a ps3, why they needed to buy Uncharted 2. (I advised them to skip 1 and get straight to 2.) They were underwhelmed by the idea. They didn't understand why some third-person shooter ripping mechanics from Gears of War and Tomb Raider deserved their time. I talked to them again a month later, and they were halfway through Uncharted 2. The first word they said when I asked them about it was "WOW". They had just finished the level on the back of a train, and they told me, "I feel like this is somehow even more than a AAA game, it's so well made." As I has been the first time I played U2, they were amazed. And that's what Uncharted is, it's an experience you have to have for yourself. You have to be in Nate's shoes when he's hanging off the back of a train while a helicopter explodes, or when a cruise ship starts sinking sideways and he has to get out fast.

Pretty much a duplicate of an old thread. Perhaps merge them viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1658

If the Vortigaunts are working with the Gman, why did they get in his way of contacting Gordon?

Hm, as evidenced by his speeches, especially in Ep 2, I think it's definitely hinted at, if not directly pointed to, the idea that the Gman is part of an alien race working to bring down the Combine. He likely takes the form of a human to talk with Gordon. His race apparently has similar super-dimensional powers to the Vortigaunts, also evidenced by their intercepting his presence at the beginning of Ep1. He and the Vortigaunts seem to be able to move through the black void dimension we've seen many times. He also seems to have the ability to change things as he sees fit in this dimension, creating the weird visions that Gordon sees. His actions certainly show that his superiors are working against the Combine, perhaps on many more worlds than just Earth. We know that Earth wasn't the first planet they invaded. Then, there's also the fact that Gman doesn't seem entirely contained by the will of his superiors. He's said that it was his opinion alone that Alyx was worth saving from Black Mesa, his superiors saying she wasn't worth the effort.

Wondering if it's possible that Valve would suddenly announce Half Life 3 at the VGAs tonight. probably not... UPDATE: QbSQ8JbyQo8

113 hours played. Got Destruction, Smithing, and Enchanting up to 100. Next goals for skill mastery are Two-Handed and Heavy Armor. Just finished my crowning achievement in both Smithing and Enchanting: A set of Daedric armor and a Daedric warhammer enchanted with the most badass properties imaginable. The armor adds up to some nice stats such as plus %160 two handed damage, plus %150 health regen, plus %80 stamina regen. That, and my total armor value is 320. My warhammer is enchanted to both act as a soul trapper, do fire damage, AND do tons of shock damage. It's base damage is 210.

I've never used a companion. Well, once I did. I got Faendal from Riverwood to carry my crap from my old house to my new house, then when all my stuff was moved over, I told him to go home. Oh, and I threw all of his previous belongings into a river, and took all his gold from him.

I'd like to just use normal controls, but have shouts be controlled by voice input. fus.... RO DAHHHH!!

They seem like completely different games to me. I don't see what the point of comparing them is. Anyway, I never liked Zelda games, for a few reasons. The main one is that the designers seem to give no original regard to the game's style or story, just focusing all energy on game mechanics. And as much as some Nintendo fans will insist that this is a recipe for success, it isn't at all. It creates a lopsided mess with more faults than virtues, constantly dragging the player through a world they find uninteresting and unoriginal, the only comfort being the relatively well designed gameplay.

When I say you need to take some time, I mean take some time getting used to the control in the fps style. After 5 or 6 hours of play, the controls start to flow better. The first time I played KZ3 with the move, it was a disaster, because I wasn't used to it. You start to really get into the groove of how your hand movement affects the crosshairs, and how moving the crosshairs exactly turns the character. You just have to spend some time and get to know it is what I'm saying. Still, over KZ3, I'd suggest trying Resistance 3 with the move, and turn off the deadzone. KZ3 has some problems with the turning system which definitely aren't present in R3. Anyway, I'm currently playing R3 on hard difficulty, around 5 hours in. Very good game, regardless of controls.

You only played with it for an hour? And this was coming directly off of playing with a controller? That's kind of like if I gave my grandmother a console game to play and she gave up after an hour cause she couldn't use the analog sticks right. A new control method takes a bit of practice. That said, Killzone 3's move controls we a lot stiffer than Resistance 3. Also, both games by default use a "deadzone", which *is* dumb. I ended up turning it completely off on both games. Turning around is much smoother without it. Anyway, it's just personal preference. I like having the ability to change viewpoint and aiming separately. And the move allows an extreme amount of precision and speed in aiming. BUT, you have to give it time. You aren't going to jump in and immediately have skill with it.