• 0

    posted a message on Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag
    I think most of the guards had pistols. They would randomly pull them out in battle like the Redcoat captains did, literally like the same animation and the same move to use a human body shield, and despite their semi-automatic pistols they would only fire one shot lol

    I lold at this idea.

    Hopefully you got a chance to read my post with the spoiler thing that I responded with.

    The cool thing about the Assassin's Creed games is that they create this realistic world and you get a feel for how people used to live. Just by exploring the environments, you don't look at the past the same.

    I think it would be cool if Ubisoft ended the series at AC4, and their next game had you playing as a ninja. Cliche? Maybe, but they could set it apart from other ninja games quite easily. They could mix elements from the AC games with brand new elements. Ninja's were often farmers and peasants, so there's your stealth mechanic. During missions where you wore a ninja outfit, you would have to actually sneak around instead of blending with the crowd. They could add a mechanic where Ninja outfits granted improved movement speed or harder detection. Of course, while wearing the suit, everyone knew you were a ninja and would pretty much kill you as soon as they saw you.

    The thing is, there's so much we don't know about ninjas. There is so much myth mixed with fact, it's hard to tell what they may have really been like. It's said that was the ninja's plan, to create myths to help confuse their enemies. They could make it so you felt like a real ninja, rather than some sort of super powerful fictional character.

    I don't know, it's just something I wouldn't mind seeing, even if it is a more generic theme.
    Posted in: General Gaming
  • 0

    posted a message on Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag
    Quote from Homem Pigman

    See that's exactly the kind of mentality that Ubisoft has that's hampering the series, like I expanded on in my above post. "Let's not advance in history because, uh, there's not swords and, uh, the technology is a bit more advanced". Doesn't make that much sense. The series should be evolving, maybe not directly to the WWs already, but evolving nonetheless.

    Assassin's Creed games are based on stealth and melee combat. I'm not talking the type of melee combat where you just run around and quickly slit people's throats, I'm talking about hand to hand combat. There just wasn't much hand to hand combat in WWI and WWII. The ONLY reason Ubisoft got away with adding guns in ACIII is because they still used black powder rifles and they took forever to reload.

    It's not lack of innovation, it's understanding game mechanics. You can't have a man who runs around the battlefields during the World Wars and just kill everyone with a sword, not when everyone else had semi-automatic and fully-automatic rifles. IF Ubisoft decided to make such a game, it wouldn't be fun at all. Everyone would be ripping their hair out, "WHY IS EVERYONE JUST STANDING THERE LETTING ME KILL THEM?!?!" It just wouldn't be fun to play an Assassin, fighting a soldier with his sword, while a bunch of soldiers around him just stand their holding their semi-automatic weapons. Again, this worked in ACIII because they used black powder rifles.

    If an AC game was set in WWI or WWII, then they would have to focus on what happened off the battlefield. Even then, all the guards would still have these guns, so it would be pointless to focus on hand to hand combat. They would have to give the Assassin a gun, an automatic gun. At this point, we're talking about an entirely different playstyle.

    I guess what I'm trying to say is this. The only way they could make AC take place during the World Wars is if they COMPLETELY changed the game play. But nobody wants AC to be something entirely different, they want it to be like the previous games. Sequels should add onto per-existing formulas, not use entirely different ones.

    Notice how in AC2 and AC3, all the guards used batons. Why would Abstergo not arm their guards with guns? Answer? Because they would break the game. Notice how there was only a single part where a pistol was used. It worked because it only appeared briefly. Had everyone had pistols, everyone would have noticed how bad they are and how unrealistically bad everyone is at using them. Not to mention, the character you killed was losing his mind (to further explain why he was such a bad aim).

    THAT is why AC can not take place during WWI or WWII. If they kept the same game mechanics, the game would be absolute ­. If they changed the game mechanics, then it would be an entirely different experience. If they're going to make a game that's entirely different, then it needs to be an original title (which I'm definitely open to).
    Posted in: General Gaming
  • 0

    posted a message on Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag

    Pirates are cool.

    I hope they just off with the whole modern storyline, like I've repeated before. It would mean they could make as many as they want without having to worry about when to end the sequels :D

    Oh also, I just thought of something.
    Since Desmond died you're probably going to be playing his dad in the continued fight against... probably that first civilization lady...

    I don't know how to do the spoilers thing, and I'm too lazy to look it up. I'll just make this next part hard to read.

    Highlight the spoiler below to read it.

    Desmond's father won't be the one in the animus. The Kenways came from Desmond's mother's side of the family. This is why they needed to use Desmond in the animus, and not his father. So, we know for a FACT it wont be Desmond's father.

    The next character has to be someone related to Desmond from his mother's side of the family. I'm guessing we'll play as Desmond's mother, but chances are we'll end up playing one of his cousins.

    Spoiler ends here.

    I don't want them to stop using ancestor's from the present. I just want them to end the story. I don't want to see more and more AC games. I'd prefer they take what they mastered in the AC games, introduce new elements into the system, and create a brand new line of stealth games. Video games are like anime to me. If they don't end, then they're worthless (story wise).
    Posted in: General Gaming
  • 0

    posted a message on Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag
    I'm incredibly happy that the next game isn't taking place in Europe or the United States. I think the pirate theme will be awesome.

    I'm sick to death of the AC games though. I love them, but I want the story to end. I've been playing since the first day AC 1 came out. I sincerely hope this game is the final AC game.

    This will be the last AC game I buy full price. Unless the next gen. xbox blocks used games, the next AC game I buy after AC 4, will be a used copy.

    Also, I want to be one of the first people on the next to call this, but I bet the next present-day protagonist will be Desmond's mother.

    Quote from Metadigital

    Did any of you play the previous Assassin's Creed title? If you did, I'm curious, are you still interested in the next one?

    I found myself so disappointed and disgusted that I can't even bring myself to look at any of the ACIV stuff. Am I just a cynical old gamer or something?

    You're not alone. I thought AC3 was poorly designed in many ways. I played through the whole game without recruiting any new assassins other than the one default guy, and I only recruited the new settlers you run into during the main mission. I never really upgraded anything or bought any weapons other than the stuff already available in the shops. I never did the navel warfare missions outside the main storyline. They just didn't feel important, at all.

    I wanted to do two playthroughs, one being casual and the other being more of a "completionist" playthrough. The thing is, when you casually play the game, you have no incentive to do any of the side quests. For some reason, I felt more compelled to go out of my way and do side quests. If I saw someone who needed help, I would help them because I wanted a new assassin recruit and I didn't have to go out of my way. Now, you have to help whole areas before you get a recruit, and it ruins the flow if you're just doing a casual runthrough.

    Then, the ending. Ohhhh boy. As I said earlier, I hope the next game is the final one. I'm tired of cliff hangers. If AC4 ends on a cliffhanger, I will only buy AC5 used.


    Quote from Achilles

    Seriously? They could have done one of the world wars, but they chose pirates.

    A lot of people want AC to take place during one of the world wars. The problem with this is guns. Automatic guns would ruin the AC game play. They were already pushing it when they allowed Connor to run through a storm of musket fire, but semi-automatic weapons and trench warfare? They would have had to have focused on assassination's that happened outside battle zones, but you still have armed guards.

    It just wouldn't have worked.

    They could do a stealth based game during WWI or WWII, but they would have to completely change the game play to something entirely different.
    Posted in: General Gaming
  • 0

    posted a message on tetris anyone?
    My friend's wife is the absolute highest rank possible on FaceBook Tetris. She is the Tetris Goddess.I believe she was one of the best Tetris gamers in all of Korea. By the time you're done reading this post, she would have defeated you. That's how good she is.
    Posted in: General Gaming
  • 0

    posted a message on Death of videogame consoles?
    Quote from bowserchomp

    Now that we got the obligatory crap argument from a console gaming fanboy out of the way, here's a crap argument from me, a PC elitist:

    He wasn't being a fanboy.

    here's a crap argument from me, a PC elitist:

    This is essentially admittance that your arguments are based on bias rather than reality. But I'll bite.

    The Xbox 360 doesn't have any good games whatsoever, and neither does the PS3. It's ALWAYS the same old movie-on-rails, quick-time event, excessive hand-holding, can't-run-while-shooting, unskippable cutscenes, day-one on-disc DLC, 10 different "exclusive" editions, two-endings-oh-my-god-sooo-deep, muddy brown crap, over and over again. And most of the "game of the year" candidates are worth a weekend rent at best. Pitiful, pitiful, pitiful year for gaming 2012 was. But not surprising.

    Normally these arguments are based on opinion, but I can tell you that you're factually wrong.

    All of these issues are present in both console and PC games, especially since both PC and consoles share a large library of games.

    Most of the games which are worthwhile (Skyrim/Fallout 3/New Vegas, GTA IV, Far Cry 3, Just Cause 2, etc) usually have a PC port, with at least a few mods.

    You're ripping on the consoles for not having any good exclusives. You point out that all the exclusives are available on both console and PC, as if this somehow makes the PC more elite. But I can make the EXACT same argument by swapping "PC" and "console" around. I can argue that there are no good PC exclusives and that all the Game of the Year editions are available on the consoles, meaning consoles are superior. (This isn't actually the case, it's just the crappy logic you used).

    Let's recap:
    • You have proven to us that you don't know what a fanboy is. You assume anyone who defends a console MUST be a fanboy.
    • You then list a bunch of things you dislike about games, and you act as if these issues are exclusive to consoles.
    • Lastly, you apply flawed logic. You state that because Games of the Year are on both console and PC, PC is superior. But since this logic can apply to consoles, there's a huge contradiction.

    There are many ways in which the PC is superior to consoles. However, it's a FACT that many people prefer consoles because they're cheaper, easier to use, and more comfortable.

    Earlier you mentioned that you can buy gamepads for the PC. This is great for single player games. However, it's incredibly difficult to use a gamepad against people who are using a mouse and controller. Even though I prefer the controller more than a mouse and keyboard, even I understand that a gamepad isn't nearly as quick and accurate as the mouse and keyboard.

    You may prefer the PC, but others prefer the console, whether you like it or not. We're discussing if console gaming will die. There's a difference between discussing whether the consoles will die or not, and discussing whether you want console gaming to die. Just because you hate console gaming doesn't mean it's going to die, and you need to realize this so you can separate fact from opinion.
    Posted in: General Gaming
  • 0

    posted a message on Death of videogame consoles?
    Quote from JnrDingo

    Yes, that is true, about PC's already have banned used games. But that's because its a PC. 70% of my xbox360 games are used 90% of my PS2 games are used, 3 NDS games I have are used, all, except one of my PSX games are used etc. Consoles need used games. Its because a lot of people who have consoles like playing older games, I like playing Most Wanted (2006) on my xbox 360, just as much as I like playing F1 2011.

    Also JutRPG, I love your sig haha :D

    The reason it works on Steam is because they're constantly monitoring prices and dropping those of older games. As long as Sony and Microsoft do the same, I doubt it would really be that bad. Granted, I'd still prefer having a used game market.
    Posted in: General Gaming
  • 0

    posted a message on Death of videogame consoles?

    Sony has stated that the PS4 won't block used games and will be able to be used offline. I'm willing to bet that the next Xbox won't block used games or require constant internet connection because that would place Microsoft at a major competitive disadvantage and they know it.

    Consoles will be around for awhile since they have the advantage of being standardized hardware in the homes of millions of folks (and let's be honest, PCs can be a pain when it comes to software compatibility as parts become outdated... the "Can I run it?" site exists for a reason), plus consoles have many games the PC doesn't (fighting games, sports games, exclusives, local co-op and party games, and 3d platformers spring to mind). One also shouldn't neglect the consoles' DVD/blueray/video-streaming features.

    I couldn't have said it better myself.

    Everyone needs to remember that PC already blocks used games.

    Quote from JutRPG

    Well the PC also has exclusives, some local co-ops, Online party games, sports games, and fighting games. You can also watch DVD's on it, the only reason i hate on Consoles is the fact that the Fanboys always curse on PC
    Common is:
    - Xbox has way better graphics then pc, while their Pc is a 1x Core..
    - (Most stupid thing ever) Destiny is a Open world multiplayer game, Pc doesn't have that!
    - They also think Consoles are better because they are cheaper.

    I've never hated old-school Consoles until PS3 and Xbox 360 came around the corner.

    Don't hate the technology, hate the haters.

    How does a fanboy make the xbox or PS4 worse? The console is the same no matter how many fanboys there are. I've heard people hate on the Beatles simply because "they're over rated". How does the number of people who like something effect the music itself? It shouldn't.

    There are fanboys everywhere, even within the PC community. If you take a step back, you'll notice that most people aren't blindly loyal to any single system. You just have to look past the few who try to ruin it for everyone else.

    It's not right to hate on a console for the sole purpose that some console gamers rip on the PC. Be honest, try to understand the positives and negatives with both PCs and consoles, and don't let bias get in the way. If a comment you make is fueled by disdain towards the fanboys rather than logic, then let it go.
    Posted in: General Gaming
  • 0

    posted a message on Sequels you'd like to see?
    I want to see Banjo-Threeie. That is to say, a version in which Nuts & Bolts is rendered non-canon. No dumb robot master, no stupid cars, no making the characters morbidly obese.

    But, alas, it will never come. : (
    Posted in: General Gaming
  • 0

    posted a message on your favorite N64 game and why
    I honestly don't know why people try to create polls for these kinds of threads.

    Banjo-Kazooie and Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time are my favorites.

    Cliche? Sure. But I grew up with Banjo-Kazooie. I didn't even know it had such a huge cult following until just recently. I played Ocarina of Time shortly before the Wii was released, I never played it as a kid. It's just a really awesome game.

    Quote from xxkylekylexx

    My favorite N64 game is conkers bad fur day, mainly because it's hilarious IMO.

    I want to play Conkers Bad Fur Day. I'll have to see if I can find it on Ebay. I'd play the xbox version but I heard the game was censored and had other issues as well.
    Posted in: General Gaming
  • 0

    posted a message on Can my computer run the Warz
    Quote from FakeComputer

    The warz is actually a great game if you get with the right players, i bet almost everyone here is just basing their opinions off of other peoples reviews, me and a couple friends got it, we played, got murdered, and had fun with it along the way, it is an amazing experience I've never had in DayZ and me and my other friend with dayz both think that warz is better.

    I've never played either one of the games, however WarZ looks inferior in every way. I'm curious as to why you enjoy WarZ more than DayZ.

    Regardless as to what me or anyone else thinks of the game, all that's important is that you enjoy the game.
    Posted in: General Gaming
  • 0

    posted a message on What makes me want to give up on games.
    I'm not exactly sure what you have against unlockable content in video games. If it isn't required to beat the game, then it serves as a nice bonus for those willing to explore or attempt other required feats.

    As for lengthy tutorials, I can agree. Reminds me of Banjo-Kazooie, and how they did their tutorial level right. The character Bottles the Mole would teach you new moves throughout the game, including your basic moves in the first world. He would ask if you needed help learning the game or if you felt you were ready to advance already. If you needed help, you would have to go around the world looking for his mole hills to talk to him and learn his abilities. If you didn't need his help, he would just give you all your basic moves. Not only would he give you your basic moves, but he would REFUSE to tell you how to do them stating, "You said you didn't need my help." He even threatens to delete your game if you keep pestering him! (he never actually does this).
    Posted in: General Gaming
  • 0

    posted a message on Log-in To Play Mainstream Games
    What measures are they going through to enforce this? If you buy a game, it's yours to modify. It's completely fair for them to deny service to you, but it's wrong for them to take legal action unless you steal from them. For example, if you buy WoW and you hack it, they should be allowed to deny you service. If you hack the system so you can play for free, I can understand legal action. All of that is okay.

    However, if they want to make it illegal to modify a product you own, then God save us if such a bill passes. They are already trying to do this with cell phones. Some companies are trying to make it illegal for customers to unlock their phones. Instead of simply denying these people service, they want to sue these people.

    When you buy a product, that product becomes yours. It's understandable if you sign a contract though, but even if the contract is breached, I'm not sure if the company should have the power to sue - only to deny service. One thing is undeniable though, we can NOT let corporations sue people who don't sign a contract, such as phone companies wanting the power to sue people who unlock their phones.
    Posted in: General Gaming
  • 1

    posted a message on Blocking Used Games...
    Quote from BlueMaus

    This is going to push way more people (including me) to PC gaming. I don't see any advantage for them in doing this, the increased amount of money they earn seems like it would be heavily outweighed by the losses.

    This makes absolutely no sense.

    You hate the idea of consoles doing away with their game markets, which makes you want to switch to PC. You are aware that the PC is the culprit that started this trend, right? Today, there isn't a used game market for the PC when it comes to more recent games.

    That being said, many people are satisfied with Steam. They don't mind that each game is attached to an account and can't be shared. If Sony and Microsoft are going to lock games to certain accounts, then hopefully they'll do it right. Steam is constantly on top of prices, lowering them as time goes on. They also have many sales that happen quite frequently. If Sony and Microsoft are going to follow in Steam's footsteps, hopefully they'll keep the prices of older games down as well.

    I am curious as to what this means for people who don't have internet though.
    Posted in: General Gaming
  • 0

    posted a message on Should I get Black Ops II?
    Quote from Bindal

    WarZ is NOT the Stand-Alone-Version of DayZ. It is a cheap cash-in from another company. DayZ is getting it's own Stand-Alone-Version soon, however, with a closed beta starting before that (500 to 1000 players)

    Oh, right, thanks for clearing that up.

    Quote from _Controlling

    It's only easy if you're good.

    The average KDR in COD is 1.0-1.5. That is, in my opinion, extremely bad.

    I second this. CoD is actually very challenging. Anyone who says it's easy either familiarized themselves with past CoD games or they're very familiar with other FPS games. If you haven't put in a lot of time in CoD or any other FPS games, the game will be challenging.

    I also wouldn't say 1.0 - 1.5 KD is extremely bad. If that's the average, then it's extremely average. >.>

    If you are a good player, you're not going to get spawn trapped.

    People shouldn't suffer the penalty of being killed right after they spawn due to lack of skill.

    Spawn killing isn't an intended strategy, it's just something that exists so domination can be a map control style game type. It's why I don't play domination, I'm not that good at CoD, and some days I just really suck. I don't like the idea that this leads to me dying as soon as I spawn.

    When it comes to spawn camping, I consider it a **** move. If I played domination, would I spawn camp? Hell yeah! But, it's a **** move, and I wouldn't try to justify it to avoid sounding hypocritical. : )
    Posted in: General Gaming
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.