Discussion Forums > Gaming

BioShock Infinite, new gameplay video

<< < (8/8)

Supai:

--- Quote from: TMRNetShark on August 12, 2011, 07:52:38 PM ---
--- Quote from: Supai on August 12, 2011, 06:18:58 PM ---Let's just clarify some things here:

a. I have HATED every Call of Duty after Modern Warfare 1 (and I stopped giving a shit about Halo after the third game (a random example)) because they're simply just the same game multiplayerwise and story is very lacking. And thus we can say that if the game is the same or very similar in multiplayer, I will most likely not pick it up (unless it has a good, decently long story). When I look at for an FPS, I look for an FPS with a nice, decently long story and/or multiplayer that offers something that interests me (How about RPGs then? As long as the lore is kept consistent and stupid shit is not done to the mechanics, I'm pretty fine with it.)

b. I never did state that I want the EXACT SAME GAME. I stated that I want it to FEEL THE SAME (Uncharted 1 - Uncharted 2, for example). Please, understand the difference.

c. I've avoided your question(s) because I've wanted this thing to stop (and because I had a headache and was tired when posting previousily) and because your question(s) is based on a incorrect assumption.

d. As you can see from the things stated above, you have made incorrect assumptions, now fucking quit it (pretty please?).

--- End quote ---

A. Name two sets of RPGs that are consistent with each other? FFX and FFXii? Tales of series? Dragon Quest series? Disgea? Persona? Hell, none of those games were consistent with each other (even though a lot of them were really good in their own unique way). Hell, even the two games you are defending in this thread (Bioshock 1&2) were different. Did you even play Bioshock 2? You played as a Big Daddy protecting a Little Sister. Bioshock didn't have a clear goal or set structure... you were just diving into the world of Rapture. In Bioshock 2, you had to protect the Little Sister or else... which was very much more blatantly linear than the first game.

B. Have you even played Uncharted 1&2? Uncharted 2 had multiplayer, better battles (on multiple levels instead of just on flat ground), and it blended the mechanics of the game much better. Uncharted 1&2 are similar, but their differences make them different for the better in the long run (Uncharted 2 was the better game with a better story, puzzles, how fights took place, etc.). In Drakes Fortune, you spent 90% of your time looking for a statue to get to the end of the level. In Among Thieves, you find little bits and pieces of the puzzle as the story progresses. Among Thieves added to the gameplay by using different weapons, having cooler stealth attacks, etc. I have to ask, did you even play Uncharted 1&2? Cause Uncharted 2: Among Thieves was way better than the first because of what they added in there. First game was just one island... second game took place all over the world.

C. I'm not assuming, I'm questioning what you said about games and you still avoid the question like the plague. What is even the assumption? You claim you want games that have the same feel to them. Great, what games out there have nearly the same feel to them as the game before without changing major elements? Uncharted 1&2 changed major elements in how the game played out, the general "feel" of the game changed from the first one (moving environments, changing locations, etc). You are just simply wrong...

D. Why is this a different point? You still havn't proved jack shit and I've disproved everything you "claimed." So what was my assumption again? That you don't know what your talking about?  ::)


--- End quote ---

You are still not getting. How fucking hard is it to get it... oh never mind, no matter how much I try to explain, you'll just be an asshole about and pick things that you feel like picking up.

I'm done, bye.

TMRNetShark:

--- Quote from: Supai on August 12, 2011, 09:42:22 PM ---You are still not getting. How fucking hard is it to get it... oh never mind, no matter how much I try to explain, you'll just be an asshole about and pick things that you feel like picking up.

I'm done, bye.

--- End quote ---

Lol, what is there to get? You never explained yourself, except say "Oh, you are making assumptions." Please state CLEARLY what I don't get. Please... I ask you. It's a simple question and you time and time again fail to answer it. Stop making yourself look dumb and admit that making the same game over and over again without changing anything is dumb. It's that simple. If I'm not getting it, point out what I'm not getting... because you clearly didn't tell me in your posts whatsoever and you are just trying to brush me off. I'm not gonna stop until you either give up or admit that your wrong.  8)

EDIT:
Here are all the things you had to say and my retort for each of them:

On how a companion would affect gameplay:
(click to show/hide)
--- Quote from: TMRNetShark on August 11, 2011, 09:33:32 PM ---
--- Quote from: Supai on August 11, 2011, 05:14:34 AM ---
--- Quote from: TMRNetShark on August 10, 2011, 10:16:35 PM ---It's not a companion that will actually affect how the game is played. I'm sure there will be stretches of the game where you won't see her at all and that'll have it's "Bioshocky" feel. I mean, in HL2, Alyx was your companion but she never really got in the way of fighting or anything. Hell, there were stretches of the game that I never saw her and/or forget she was there.

--- End quote ---

Well, you get to use Elizabeth to create covers and such, so I'd say that it affects how the game is played.  8)

And on to Half Life, Alyx (and the gang of rebels you work for / with) was one of the main reasons why I found Half Life 2 inferior to Half Life 1.

--- End quote ---

Keywords... you GET to... not HAVE to. What difference does it make that a companion does that stuff that would make it different from you doing it yourself?

And really? You found HL2 inferior to Half Life because of that? There weren't even that many stretches of combat that really made a difference having them there or not. Then again, I was playing Half Life 1 & 2 for the fun of it... not worrying about "Oh whopes! NPCs are doing shit that I should be responsible for! The game is not as good anymore!"

I mean come on, the addition of Elizabeth is story elements and makes you attached to the characters. Would it make a difference in gameplay (to you at least) to remove Elizabeth entirely and give you the power to make cover and such? Would that be better? Nope... it's the same... :P

Once again in HL2, would you think it's really realistic or even remotely realistic that one person is taking on 16+ combine soldiers AND striders AND the orbital cannon thingy? Gordon would be dead in seconds. Instead, having your entourage of rebels ADDED to the gameplay... not subtract from it. Then again, we may just have differing opinions (or you might just be a loner).

--- End quote ---

On how you like story more than the gameplay... yet you don't want companions because it ruins "isolation":
(click to show/hide)
--- Quote from: TMRNetShark on August 11, 2011, 10:50:16 PM ---
--- Quote from: Supai on August 11, 2011, 10:11:17 PM ---
--- Quote from: TMRNetShark on August 11, 2011, 09:33:32 PM ---And really? You found HL2 inferior to Half Life because of that? There weren't even that many stretches of combat that really made a difference having them there or not. Then again, I was playing Half Life 1 & 2 for the fun of it... not worrying about "Oh whopes! NPCs are doing shit that I should be responsible for! The game is not as good anymore!"

[Unrelated]

Once again in HL2, would you think it's really realistic or even remotely realistic that one person is taking on 16+ combine soldiers AND striders AND the orbital cannon thingy? Gordon would be dead in seconds. Instead, having your entourage of rebels ADDED to the gameplay... not subtract from it. Then again, we may just have differing opinions (or you might just be a loner).

--- End quote ---

I don't give a rats ass about the combat (in general too, I really don't play a game's singleplayer for it's combat (as long as it functions and doesn't just utterly bore me, I'm fine with it)) with companions , having companions and shit like that just takes away from the isolated atmosphere that I loved and would very much prefer.

And even though I generally like realism in video games to some extent, when it comes to Half Life, I really don't care about realism. At all.

I just do want my game series that started with a isolated atmosphere remain so.

--- End quote ---

So you don't like combat... but you like story or the atmosphere. If the player is just alone, there is only so much you can do for story elements or environmental feeling before you hit a wall in immersion. Adding in companions only adds to the story (which I'm assuming you care about more over combat, right?) and makes you attached to the game. The combat in HL was amazing and great, but it just felt like a really good shooter. HL2 on the other hand, was an amazing shooter game with an AMAZING storyline and atmosphere. The only problem I had with HL2 (over HL) was the lack of varied weapons (2 pistols, 1 shotgun, 1 smg, 2 specials, grenades) but more than made up for it with the Gravity Gun.

The issue wasn't combat... the issue was atmosphere and environmental immersion, right? How in the world did HL have a superior atmosphere over a game that nailed atmosphere perfectly (HL2)?

How will Bioshock 1&2 be superior to Infinite when (so far) the atmosphere and story look to be even better?

--- End quote ---

--- Quote from: TMRNetShark on August 10, 2011, 10:16:35 PM ---It's not a companion that will actually affect how the game is played. I'm sure there will be stretches of the game where you won't see her at all and that'll have it's "Bioshocky" feel. I mean, in HL2, Alyx was your companion but she never really got in the way of fighting or anything. Hell, there were stretches of the game that I never saw her and/or forget she was there.

--- End quote ---

On why no game developer has kept the same feel or atmosphere in a game twice without changing major elements to gameplay:
(click to show/hide)
--- Quote from: TMRNetShark on August 12, 2011, 07:52:38 PM ---A. Name two sets of RPGs that are consistent with each other? FFX and FFXii? Tales of series? Dragon Quest series? Disgea? Persona? Hell, none of those games were consistent with each other (even though a lot of them were really good in their own unique way). Hell, even the two games you are defending in this thread (Bioshock 1&2) were different. Did you even play Bioshock 2? You played as a Big Daddy protecting a Little Sister. Bioshock didn't have a clear goal or set structure... you were just diving into the world of Rapture. In Bioshock 2, you had to protect the Little Sister or else... which was very much more blatantly linear than the first game.

B. Have you even played Uncharted 1&2? Uncharted 2 had multiplayer, better battles (on multiple levels instead of just on flat ground), and it blended the mechanics of the game much better. Uncharted 1&2 are similar, but their differences make them different for the better in the long run (Uncharted 2 was the better game with a better story, puzzles, how fights took place, etc.). In Drakes Fortune, you spent 90% of your time looking for a statue to get to the end of the level. In Among Thieves, you find little bits and pieces of the puzzle as the story progresses. Among Thieves added to the gameplay by using different weapons, having cooler stealth attacks, etc. I have to ask, did you even play Uncharted 1&2? Cause Uncharted 2: Among Thieves was way better than the first because of what they added in there. First game was just one island... second game took place all over the world.

C. I'm not assuming, I'm questioning what you said about games and you still avoid the question like the plague. What is even the assumption? You claim you want games that have the same feel to them. Great, what games out there have nearly the same feel to them as the game before without changing major elements? Uncharted 1&2 changed major elements in how the game played out, the general "feel" of the game changed from the first one (moving environments, changing locations, etc). You are just simply wrong...

D. Why is this a different point? You still havn't proved jack shit and I've disproved everything you "claimed." So what was my assumption again? That you don't know what your talking about?  ::)


--- End quote ---

So yeah, where is the thing I'm not getting? Is it because you didn't say it or that the cat has got your tongue and... well... you're wrong.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page