McStrongfast's forum posts

#1 Posted by McStrongfast (4261 posts) -

I was just struck by a Cliff Blezsinski nostalgia that hit me, and I wanted to go check out the first installment of the Gears of War franchise. But where on the internet in digital form is it at? Please don't tell me I need to pay shipping for this stupid thing.

#2 Posted by McStrongfast (4261 posts) -

Well, yeah, but, no. I get the why, but please let last-gen fuck off ASAP.

#3 Posted by McStrongfast (4261 posts) -

The first perp I chased down, I blew up the thing underneath him and the explosion propelled him straight into a garbage bin. Job well done.
Whoever placed that bin there has my respect. Also whoever put the Monster Squad quote in there. He does indeed have nards. Probably the most underappreciated of the culty 80's kids movies.

#4 Posted by McStrongfast (4261 posts) -

The Division isn't inherently interesting as much, or the same way the general concepts of Watch Dogs were. Also, not really knowing the specifics of what they're aiming for, I don't know what there'd be to hope for. All I know is it's going to be some sort of open world teambased multiplayer third person shooter, and that's not inherently exciting really. GTA Online was one of those. There's always potential.

#5 Edited by McStrongfast (4261 posts) -

Singling out one factor as the reason for different people taking their lives seems highly stupid. Especially when you don't bother going deeper than "they played Call of Duty". Humans aren't that simple. What about playing Call of Duty would make you want to kill yourself? Nope, that's apparently not important to the argument they're making. The fact that some amount of people who've done bad shit have played videogames in which the player character exhibits violent behavior towards NPC's or other players, is supposedly enough to lend this theory merit. More ice-creams were sold, therefore more shark attacks.

And the fact that teenagers play Call of Duty should be met with a "well that's nothing out of the ordinary, it's a very popular game in the age demographic" rather than "hm, this is probably why they committed suicide". I can understand this ignorant coroner being concerned when he thinks there might be a pattern where there's likely none, but it's unfortunate how his ignorance is being amplified by people like this Beck fellow. Spreading ignorance surrounding these sorts of topics is both dangerous and disrespectful.

#6 Posted by McStrongfast (4261 posts) -

While they sure laid it on thick and didn't exactly discourage speculation and hope for what I thought it'd be like due to them evoking presumptions that it'd be more than it was, it's also my own fault for being gullible enough to get sucked in by it.

For instance in that one demo where Aiden sneaks up on a crime about to happen, lacking context of how that fits into the game, you try to fill in the blanks, and when previews are talking about things like morality and emergent gameplay, you fill in the blanks with stuff influenced by that. So I expected those scenarios to be more detailed, nuanced and organic then they turned out to be. They're scripted events abiding by a fairly strict ruleset, surfaced by a notification in the HUD, then you go to the waypoint, shoot the perp dead or beat them unconscious and leave them lying in the street. I guess technically you can just scare them off, but that's not what the game wants you to do. And it punishes you for not letting the situation escalate, which is kind of weird. I suppose one of the ideas with the crime% meter is that you're not sure if things will turn violent or not, but they always do, and you are. There's a lot of interesting things you could do around the ideas in Watch Dogs, and kudos to them for having a look at it, because just thinking about it it seems like most of those things are incredibly tricky to execute in an interesting way that doesn't make the game frustrating to play, but...

...tl;dr
I expected more of an emergent, reactive simulation, got more of a Ubisoft open world game.

#7 Posted by McStrongfast (4261 posts) -

Tell me more about your wet bounty.

#8 Edited by McStrongfast (4261 posts) -

The only games worse than Mass Effect 2 are Super Mario Bros 3, Half-Life 2 and Metal Gear Solid.

#9 Edited by McStrongfast (4261 posts) -

Probably delays my Xbox One purchase along with it. The supporting cast can't support a whole movie, you need Clint Schwarzenegger.

(Unless it's an ensemble cast.)

#10 Posted by McStrongfast (4261 posts) -

@silversix_ said:

release BC3 already

Why are people so damn eager for BC3? I admit the SP stuff was mildly entertaining and the MP in BC2 is some of the best in the series to me but I can't see BC3 being a return to form or anything like that. DICE have gone off the deep end by now and likely won't recapture that magic again. Too busy being serious and realistic

It's the only remotely interesting SP campaign Battlefield has ever had. It tried (at least the first one) to sort of convert what had defined Battlefield into a campaign, i.e. making it openended, not telling or dictating to players what to do so much, but presenting them with scenarios, supplying some tools and leaving it to them to figure it out. And it was something as rare as a story in a military shooter that shot for personality and humor, and often succeeding at it.

Like, does anyone actually care about the bland campaigns of BF3 and BF4 (and to some degree BC2)? Do more people buy Battlefield because it has a campaign that's serious linearity rather than dynamic fun? That's what they're claiming, but I just can't buy that as it sounds preposterous.