IndianaPwns39's forum posts

Avatar image for IndianaPwns39
IndianaPwns39

5037

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

36

Followers

Reviews: 73

User Lists: 0

#1 IndianaPwns39
Member since 2008 • 5037 Posts

I can't think of a single girl I know that cares or mocks that I game.

In fact, about half of them are avid gamers anyway.

Avatar image for IndianaPwns39
IndianaPwns39

5037

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

36

Followers

Reviews: 73

User Lists: 0

#2  Edited By IndianaPwns39
Member since 2008 • 5037 Posts

@udubdawgz1: Why though? Why does that character's homosexuality have to exist for no other reason than to push an agenda? Can it not exist because that's the story and it holds no other basis for being present other than yes, some people are gay?

Especially in this case, in which the character we're discussing is so minor, exhibits no stereotypical signs of homosexuality, and only mentions his husband in passing if you choose to talk with him. It's hardly something forced upon the player and really doesn't feel like it exists to push an agenda. Usually, those things are overbearing and frequently brought up, almost constant reminders. This isn't the case with this character.

Avatar image for IndianaPwns39
IndianaPwns39

5037

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

36

Followers

Reviews: 73

User Lists: 0

#3 IndianaPwns39
Member since 2008 • 5037 Posts

@HipHopBeats said:

Here I am trying to unite the galaxy to fight an eminent Reaper invasion, yet every time I step into the cargo area, I hear my pilot sobbing over audio tapes of his dead husband? He's gay, I get it already.

"He's gay, I get it already."

Wow.

That is entirely not the point. If he was sobbing over his wife, no one would think twice. He's sobbing over his husband, that's his character, and if you lost someone you cared about in that particular setting you'd be devastated too.

See this is the issue. One's gender orientation doesn't matter, but reactions like that do. You can say over and over that it doesn't matter to you, but to imply a character was distraught over the death of their spouse only existed to push an agenda is ludicrous.

Avatar image for IndianaPwns39
IndianaPwns39

5037

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

36

Followers

Reviews: 73

User Lists: 0

#4 IndianaPwns39
Member since 2008 • 5037 Posts

Mass Effect 2.

Avatar image for IndianaPwns39
IndianaPwns39

5037

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

36

Followers

Reviews: 73

User Lists: 0

#5 IndianaPwns39
Member since 2008 • 5037 Posts

@whynotdairy said:

@IndianaPwns39 said:

Well, they're usually awful, that's a good reason.

Though another reason is because of a disgusting lack of originality these days. Shooters are a dime a dozen and their stories are almost always the same: following a rag tag group of soldiers trying to save the world from a terrorist threat.

Even games with different settings follow this formula. Crysis might have you fighting aliens eventually, but the first half of that game you were part of a squad trying to stop North Korea from doing something or other.

It also doesn't help that they're wildly over dramatic with no semblance of real human emotion or connection to the characters. It might sound harrowing to have to slice off your comrades leg after a mission went south, but it's hard to care when this happens 5 minutes in the game and you have no idea who these characters are or what they're doing. Plus, those 5 minutes have you slaughtering dozens and dozens of elite soldiers while taking on an attack chopper, further detaching you from any sort of emotional connection.

But, as stated in the opening post, WW2 games were not original whatsoever. All of the newer games set in contemporary times use imagined conflicts, or extensions of conflicts. They are by definition more imaginative and original.

But, as stated nowhere in my post, I wasn't defending WW2 games. Even then, that's a poor defense. One genre's overall shittiness doesn't magically become good simply because another genre isn't attacked for the exact same reasons.

Furthermore, I wouldn't necessarily say any modern military shooter is more imaginative than various WW2 titles. Despite taking part in various battles that actually happened, virtually every WW2 game had a fictitious story following made up characters against the back drop of shooting Nazis in the face. The setting wasn't original, but neither are 95% of military shooters. Are we truly defending "generic middle eastern terrorist movement" with an end game of "the Russians are invading" story now?

And, let's not forget, no military shooter has anything on Wolfenstein. That would be cool. You raid a middle eastern strong hold only to find a portal to hell and have to battle off demons.

Seriously. Let's shoot demons again. Humans are boring. They shouldn't be, but the last game that tried to have competent AI was FEAR.

Avatar image for IndianaPwns39
IndianaPwns39

5037

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

36

Followers

Reviews: 73

User Lists: 0

#6  Edited By IndianaPwns39
Member since 2008 • 5037 Posts

Well, they're usually awful, that's a good reason.

Though another reason is because of a disgusting lack of originality these days. Shooters are a dime a dozen and their stories are almost always the same: following a rag tag group of soldiers trying to save the world from a terrorist threat.

Even games with different settings follow this formula. Crysis might have you fighting aliens eventually, but the first half of that game you were part of a squad trying to stop North Korea from doing something or other.

It also doesn't help that they're wildly over dramatic with no semblance of real human emotion or connection to the characters. It might sound harrowing to have to slice off your comrades leg after a mission went south, but it's hard to care when this happens 5 minutes in the game and you have no idea who these characters are or what they're doing. Plus, those 5 minutes have you slaughtering dozens and dozens of elite soldiers while taking on an attack chopper, further detaching you from any sort of emotional connection.

Avatar image for IndianaPwns39
IndianaPwns39

5037

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

36

Followers

Reviews: 73

User Lists: 0

#7 IndianaPwns39
Member since 2008 • 5037 Posts

@gpuFX16 said:

^Do you think Dex damage is somewhat lacking? A lot of the co-op bosses I've done, my damage output seems lower than it should be. I'm using a Blacksteel Katana +10 w/Great Magic Weapon applied for tough fights, but it still feels a little short on damage. The increased health of bosses with more players present counts, but still... I had a similar build in Souls 1 with the Uchi and the damage output was sky-high.

I had used a Falchion +6 until I made it to Iron Keep, ugh. Not that I don't like STR builds, but maybe starting with that might have been the better option.

Yeah, Dex is certainly lacking in this game. Like I said, I have the Channeler's Trident from the original Dark Souls and it seems to be way more powerful than any new Dex weapons I come across.

The dual blades especially need a buff. The damage was 55 with a C scaling, which is garbage, but I had assumed it was so low because of how fast the weapon is. So a single attack can land 4 or 5 hits but it still takes away a miniscule amount of damage. I think it was supposed to be 55 per hit, but it seems more like 55 per animation. I had 35 Dex, a Dualblade +4 and it still took 6 hits to kill one of those exploding mummies in Lost Bastille.

Avatar image for IndianaPwns39
IndianaPwns39

5037

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

36

Followers

Reviews: 73

User Lists: 0

#8 IndianaPwns39
Member since 2008 • 5037 Posts

@meatgrinderz: I just started a Dex Hex build and I was very lucky that I immediately got the Trident from the birds. I knew I was going to have to suffer for a while but nope, got a half way decent Dex build weapon 3 enemies into the game.

Avatar image for IndianaPwns39
IndianaPwns39

5037

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

36

Followers

Reviews: 73

User Lists: 0

#9 IndianaPwns39
Member since 2008 • 5037 Posts

It should have ended with Shepard leading the charge against the Reaper forces with a fully united universe fighting for one single cause.

Which it almost was, but they had the whole Crucible thing, and win buttons are such a fucking plague in modern story telling.

In fact before that game released, and I was hyped beyond belief, I had frequently told friends "I hope there's no win button" over and over again. When I played the game, 20 minutes in the admiral is telling me about the discovery of the Crucible and how it could destroy the Reapers. I just muttered "God... damn it" and the whole thing became a little less intense.

Avatar image for IndianaPwns39
IndianaPwns39

5037

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

36

Followers

Reviews: 73

User Lists: 0

#10 IndianaPwns39
Member since 2008 • 5037 Posts

Star Citizen will be the game that makes me finally build a new rig. There are few games that are exciting as that one.