|
Neruz posted:I just don't understand why it can automatically target enemies for its gun but not for its rockets. I can understand it maybe needing manual driving or having a remote control function but if it can automatically target enemy combatants with its gun; which it can, then why can't it do the same with rockets? Because "stand in one spot and point at the rushing enemies for the muderbot to kill them" is exciting modern warfare gameplay. Tough that one MW2 mission where you could direct Stryker was fun because they weren't beating you over the head with it. It was a nice way to knock Hips out of the sky.
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 02:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 12:48 |
|
|
Unless I am mistaken, the civilian population has far more guns than the military and not the kind that would be affected by ECMs. A decade or two from now and the population might have a ratio of 1.1 guns per person. A land war in the US is statistically against 300 million armed irregulars or something.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 04:44
|
|
|
A land war in the US would be almost as impossible as a land war in Russia and I think we all know how those have historically gone for everyone who wasn't the Mongols.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 04:47
|
|
|
Neruz posted:A land war in the US would be almost as impossible as a land war in Russia and I think we all know how those have historically gone for everyone who wasn't the Mongols. I've played a hell of a lot of Civilization V and I can verify that Mongols can conquer the United States no problem.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 04:58
|
|
|
Scalding Coffee posted:Unless I am mistaken, the civilian population has far more guns than the military and not the kind that would be affected by ECMs. A decade or two from now and the population might have a ratio of 1.1 guns per person. A land war in the US is statistically against 300 million armed irregulars or something. The number of guns per capita is high, but only because most people who own guns have more than one. Most people don't actually own guns, or know how to use them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 05:05
|
|
|
Crigit posted:The number of guns per capita is high, but only because most people who own guns have more than one. Most people don't actually own guns, or know how to use them. Before anybody floats a silly idea, no the multigun people would not share them so that America could fight the hideous foreign invaders together. That would be Communism 
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 05:23
|
|
|
Communism would be the government taking all their guns away.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 05:28
|
|
|
From my time spent on /k/ Igot the impression that the rabid gun nuts spent as much time thinking how they'll fight The Man when he comes to take their guns away/make them gay/send them to FEMA deathcams as dreaming about Chicom invasion. On State/Church holidays, weekends and February 29th they relax by fantasizing about shooting house invaders in general and marauding gangs of black people in particular. Seriously, the survivalist camp is their wet dream.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 06:58
|
|
|
Kinda hosed how it got to that point with history being a guide.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 17:33
|
|
|
So just fyi I could hear about 50% of what you were saying during action segments. The audio balancing on this episode seemed kind of fucky.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 17:49
|
|
|
JcDent posted:From my time spent on /k/ Igot the impression that the rabid gun nuts spent as much time thinking how they'll fight The Man when he comes to take their guns away/make them gay/send them to FEMA deathcams as dreaming about Chicom invasion. Sometimes I wish there was a way to turn people gay just so these idiots can be afraid of something that actually exists.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 18:00
|
|
|
Neruz posted:Sometimes I wish there was a way to turn people gay just so these idiots can be afraid of something that actually exists. We tried, man. If there were a way, our military would have found it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 18:15
|
|
|
Neruz posted:Sometimes I wish there was a way to turn people gay just so these idiots can be afraid of something that actually exists. "California". Everything about it scares them. On, and while were on topic, does Connor call anyone a gook in the game?
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 18:35
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:The fiction that probably has the best depiction of WP right now is Fury. They fire a shell into a building full of German soldiers and the victims come stumbling out with their bodies covered in brightly burning patches of WP particles. The 2012 Dredd movie also had a pretty horrifying depiction of it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 18:47
|
|
|
Magni posted:The 2012 Dredd movie also had a pretty horrifying depiction of it. That movie turned out to be way better than it had any right to be.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 18:50
|
|
|
Magni posted:The 2012 Dredd movie also had a pretty horrifying depiction of it. That's how it looks while bursting, but it's still not quite "napalm but a cloud". It sets flammable materials on fire, so potentially clothing and hair, but the particles mainly just glow brightly and burn through the flesh all the way to the bone. The resulting injuries look more like massive chemical burns, and I do not recommend looking up pictures. Ever. It's also even more dangerous because the burning produces toxic fumes, so Jacobs, Rianna, and Conners are likely all badly poisoned just from standing so close during the initial bombing!
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 19:06
|
|
|
DoctorStrangelove posted:家是哪里的战争 "One day the North Koreans decided to be better at everything. And then they were." Scalding Coffee posted:Unless I am mistaken, the civilian population has far more guns than the military and not the kind that would be affected by ECMs. A decade or two from now and the population might have a ratio of 1.1 guns per person. A land war in the US is statistically against 300 million armed irregulars or something. Neruz posted:A land war in the US would be almost as impossible as a land war in Russia and I think we all know how those have historically gone for everyone who wasn't the Mongols. Yeah, they'd regret it imme-- Crigit posted:The number of guns per capita is high, but only because most people who own guns have more than one. Most people don't actually own guns, or know how to use them. -- well... I mean, they're pretty easy to figure out except for your safety protocols. You'd just have to sh-- Chard posted:Before anybody floats a silly idea, no the multigun people would not share them so that America could fight the hideous foreign invaders together. -- yeah, probably not. But gun sales would go through the roof, at least! In all honesty, though, I think there are enough of our own crazy gun nuts over here that at the very least the invaders would have to deal with some sort of insurgency group led by Patrick Swayze (God bless him and keep him somewhere warm) and Charlie Sheen. The Steak Justice posted:So just fyi I could hear about 50% of what you were saying during action segments. The audio balancing on this episode seemed kind of fucky. I think the LP in general has had some weird conflicts between hearing the game's script and the commentary. I don't know enough about audio ducking or whatever it's called to offer any solutions, but I'd prefer to hear the commentary over the dumb bullshit. If there's a decently sized, stupid-as-gently caress chunk of dialogue you guys know is coming up, though, I'd like to see how stupid it is before you guys chime in again. But that requires knowing exactly when they're going to speak, and I don't expect any of you to figure that out. This game doesn't deserve that effort by any means.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 19:58
|
|
|
Seriously, you're not missing much in the dialogue. It explains the plot progression about as well as complete silence would.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 20:32
|
|
|
Magni posted:The 2012 Dredd movie also had a pretty horrifying depiction of it. I'm sure everyone reading this must know it, but I also recall Spec Ops: The Line did a pretty terrifying job of portraying W.P.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 21:19
|
|
|
Samovar posted:I'm sure everyone reading this must know it, but I also recall Spec Ops: The Line did a pretty terrifying job of portraying W.P.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 21:49
|
|
|
Samovar posted:I'm sure everyone reading this must know it, but I also recall Spec Ops: The Line did a pretty terrifying job of portraying W.P. Didn't effect me, because when I saw that humwee near the ditch with people, I went "this is fishy", so of course, I tried to land shots nearby, to maybe splash damage it. Nope. So I dropped one directly on top and the refugees light up like they were standing in gasoline. WP didn't have the same splash when I was bombarding troops before! So yeah, the devs cheated in my book
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 04:11
|
|
|
JcDent posted:Didn't effect me I didn't mind it too much, however, since I always found that game to be about Walker's story and descent into darkness.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 13:50
|
|
|
I hated that part since I pretty much guessed what's going to happen and then spent hours trying to clear out the endlessly coming snipers. It's a great scene, don't get me wrong - for all its hamfistedness The Line really works - but them giving you the option which turns out illusory is a dick move.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 13:58
|
|
|
The worst part is how the WP scene in Spec Ops: The Line is supposed to be the pivotal moment of the game where you realize how far you've gone and recoil from all the terrible things you've done, but the moment just falls on its face.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 14:52
|
|
|
Ghost Stromboli posted:I think the LP in general has had some weird conflicts between hearing the game's script and the commentary. I don't know enough about audio ducking or whatever it's called to offer any solutions, but I'd prefer to hear the commentary over the dumb bullshit. If there's a decently sized, stupid-as-gently caress chunk of dialogue you guys know is coming up, though, I'd like to see how stupid it is before you guys chime in again. But that requires knowing exactly when they're going to speak, and I don't expect any of you to figure that out. This game doesn't deserve that effort by any means. In regards to this, I'm going to spend some time today and this weekend working on re-balancing the audio and probably tweaking episode 3's gamma as I learn more and more about how much youtube fucks up things that looked and sounded right on my local rig. The next episode should be showing up either tonight or in a day or two depending on how long the rest of the re-edit takes. It's a short one at 15 minutes long, which before I did the editing and actually watched the episode, I was convinced was 25 minutes long minimum. Episode 4 is easily the worst mission in the game in regards to actual gameplay. Which is then followed up with an incredibly boring mission.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 16:28
|
|
|
radintorov posted:Yeah, that particular bit doesn't work as well when trying to hit the player for what he did, since as you are forced to do it. I think Spec Ops works much better if you take it as a story about Walker, rather than the player "being" Walker. A lot of games try to do the "You ARE your character, your decisions are their decisions" thing, but that's only really possible in an RPG or games where the character is a silent blank slate (and the "silent protagonist" trope really needs to take a long walk to hell). When the game adds characterization, it becomes the story of that character. Maybe you have the ability to nudge which direction they take, but it's more Choose Your Own Adventure than "You make them who they are and it's all your fault." So the player had no choice but to drop the WP because that's what the game needs to do to move forward. But Walker assumed that he had no choice because the dude's batshit and dragged everyone along with it. Which is the entire story of Spec Ops.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 16:59
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:I think Spec Ops works much better if you take it as a story about Walker, rather than the player "being" Walker. A lot of games try to do the "You ARE your character, your decisions are their decisions" thing, but that's only really possible in an RPG or games where the character is a silent blank slate (and the "silent protagonist" trope really needs to take a long walk to hell). When the game adds characterization, it becomes the story of that character. Maybe you have the ability to nudge which direction they take, but it's more Choose Your Own Adventure than "You make them who they are and it's all your fault." This is a good point, and I think video game plots run into this conflict a lot. One of the Far Cry 4 devs was recently asked in some article why the main character seems so schizophrenic (if that's even the right way to put it) at times, and the answer was literally along those exact lines of, "You ARE the character." Although in Far Cry 4's case I'd argue that shouldn't be how it's interpreted. They made a pretty loving specific scenario with your character's parents being important people and yada yada yada -- maybe they should have stuck with Ajay being one specific person and not a... jarhead, I guess. But the point is that developers seem to sometimes want both interesting characters and player choice. Sometimes that doesn't always work. It's a game-to-game basis, really, and certain games are fine with blank slate characters like Gordon Freeman or Link. They can essentially function as stand-ins for you, the player. In the past few years it has started to become more painfully obvious that, to no fault of their own, game developers are not writers by trade, and sometimes they goof it up. The problem with that though is that some games basically run on story, setting, etc. Whereas with games like Tetris and Plants vs. Zombies you just need consistent gameplay and a progression of challenge and all that, games like The Last of Us and even Homefront depend on setting, mood, characters, plot, and all that subjective nonsense that can't just be tacked on willynilly. And that job is often left up to (again, no offense to them) programmers and art designers. Not many places out there have their own Chris Avellone, and so you end up with hamfisted or just plain terrible characters and scenarios that don't make sense. Some games these days remind me of my friends and myself when we were younger, saying, "wouldn't it be cool if..." And "wouldn't it be cool if..." is usually followed by something pretty loving stupid.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 20:28
|
|
|
drkeiscool posted:The worst part is how the WP scene in Spec Ops: The Line is supposed to be the pivotal moment of the game where you realize how far you've gone and recoil from all the terrible things you've done, but the moment just falls on its face. No that scene is okay. The worst part is that the game gets super preachy about it afterwards. With some bonus hypocrisy to boot. "There is always a choice!" my rear end. I still admire Spec Ops for its attempt at doing something like that, even if the execution was less than stellar. I think the scene likely works better if you're a big time FPS player, since you are basically just going through the motions up to this point. IIRC the devs even noted that there were three reactions to the scene: players who were horrified but kept playing to see what happens next, players who broke down and couldn't continue and players who just said "eh, it's a video game" and just kept going.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 20:39
|
|
|
Regardless of the latest impending argument over whether Spec Ops: the Line is a golden pinnacle of gaming or overrated trash, you have to admit it's pretty loving poetic that it came out a year or so after Homefront, like some straight up Goofus and Gallant poo poo. "Spec Ops: the Line presents war as fraught and brutal both psychologically as well as physically, and uses its white phosphorus scene to emphasize that point. Homefront enthusiastically shouts 'Korean barbecue!' and makes you fall out of a tower."
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 00:09
|
|
|
家是哪里的战争 Spec-Ops did the exact same thing that the Lonesome Road DLC for New Vegas did but much more heavy-handed and without fun gameplay or memorable characters like New Vegas had. 家是哪里的战争 DoctorStrangelove fucked around with this message at 02:03 on Jan 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 00:36
|
|
|
anilEhilated posted:The Line really works - but them giving you the option which turns out illusory is a dick move. I always felt that that was sort of the point of Spec Ops: The Line. Every "choice" becomes illusory no matter what you do, which hits a bit harder because the game tries so hard to emphasize the idea that your choices matter while simultaneously shoving it in your face that they don't. I always thought that was done purposefully to illustrate that Walker felt he had no choice (or at least told himself that), and as others have said before me, The Line isn't really YOUR story, it's Walker's.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 00:56
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:No that scene is okay. The worst part is that the game gets super preachy about it afterwards. With some bonus hypocrisy to boot. "There is always a choice!" my rear end. I still admire Spec Ops for its attempt at doing something like that, even if the execution was less than stellar. Alright, yeah, I see what you're saying. MoadDib posted:I always felt that that was sort of the point of Spec Ops: The Line. Every "choice" becomes illusory no matter what you do, which hits a bit harder because the game tries so hard to emphasize the idea that your choices matter while simultaneously shoving it in your face that they don't. I always thought that was done purposefully to illustrate that Walker felt he had no choice (or at least told himself that), and as others have said before me, The Line isn't really YOUR story, it's Walker's. The false choices led to confusion about who the protagonist was: was it Walker, or the player? which needlessly damages the narrative. I think the protagonist was actually supposed to be both, because it's Walker's story, but the player is driving it. But at the end, (Spec Ops ending spoilers) after you find Conrad dead and start hallucinating his ghost or something, he says, " None of this would have happened if you had just stopped." That's a revelation to Walker, but to the player? We're never given the option to just turn around and leave. And don't tell me "You could have just quit the game". The story in a book doesn't conclude just because you close it, the story of a movie doesn't conclude just because you stop it, and the story of a TV show doesn't conclude just because you stop watching. So why would the story of a video game end just because you end the program?
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 01:11
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:Regardless of the latest impending argument over whether Spec Ops: the Line is a golden pinnacle of gaming or overrated trash, you have to admit it's pretty loving poetic that it came out a year or so after Homefront, like some straight up Goofus and Gallant poo poo. "Spec Ops: the Line presents war as fraught and brutal both psychologically as well as physically, and uses its white phosphorus scene to emphasize that point. Homefront enthusiastically shouts 'Korean barbecue!' and makes you fall out of a tower." I'd argue Bad Company 2 over Spec Ops the Line for the Goofus and Gallant poo poo. Spec Ops feels too much like a generic modern military shooter with the plot tacked on. As for our WP rounds, I get the feeling the devs heard of incendiary artillery rounds and assumed what the mechanics were. Incendiary Munitions do exist though I don't know if they're air burst like they are in this festering pile of poo poo. Another infamous entry into this type of round is the Flash, the same rocket launcher that Jill Valentine uses.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 02:09
|
|
|
Spec Ops was one of those games where if it worked for you the result was absolutely amazing and if it didn't then you got to sit around wondering what the hell everyone is going on about. It was basically built as a deconstruction of a specific type of FPS player and if you aren't one of those then the story simply doesn't work.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 02:26
|
|
|
I just got a chance to look at the third video and I had to go load up the second video because I thought I missed a huge section of video or something to explain what the hell was going on at the start of the video. They actually went from you lying in a mass grave to you loading up into a van with like zero explanation as to why that made any sense besides "We'll meet back at the school." Don't show anything interesting, Homefront, just teleport us around.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 03:42
|
|
|
Lazyfire posted:I just got a chance to look at the third video and I had to go load up the second video because I thought I missed a huge section of video or something to explain what the hell was going on at the start of the video. They actually went from you lying in a mass grave to you loading up into a van with like zero explanation as to why that made any sense besides "We'll meet back at the school." Don't show anything interesting, Homefront, just teleport us around. The mission after the next one does the exact same thing. It just kinda trails off until you're miles away from where you ended the last one, skipping anything that could be used to do world or character building.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 04:13
|
|
|
drkeiscool posted:We're never given the option to just turn around and leave. In an original version of the game, didn't you have the option to leave Dubai whenever you wanted and end the game right then and there? IIRC they took it out because people kept doing it ASAP.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 04:21
|
|
|
Lazyfire posted:I just got a chance to look at the third video and I had to go load up the second video because I thought I missed a huge section of video or something to explain what the hell was going on at the start of the video. They actually went from you lying in a mass grave to you loading up into a van with like zero explanation as to why that made any sense besides "We'll meet back at the school." Don't show anything interesting, Homefront, just teleport us around. Homefront has risen above such petty concerns as setting and grounding the player in what's going on.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 05:02
|
|
|
Flesnolk posted:In an original version of the game, didn't you have the option to leave Dubai whenever you wanted and end the game right then and there? IIRC they took it out because people kept doing it ASAP. They were originally going to give the player options to just say 'we're in too deep, pull out of this stinking mess we've gone way off mission' but testing showed that it only confused the hell of out players so they removed it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 05:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 12:48 |
|
|
Flesnolk posted:In an original version of the game, didn't you have the option to leave Dubai whenever you wanted and end the game right then and there? IIRC they took it out because people kept doing it ASAP. Neruz posted:They were originally going to give the player options to just say 'we're in too deep, pull out of this stinking mess we've gone way off mission' but testing showed that it only confused the hell of out players so they removed it. What. Doesn't that defeat the whole purpose of Conrad's ghost/hallucination ranting about how you could have just stopped? Do you have a source for that? Not that I don't believe you, but I have to see this for myself.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 05:47
|
|