Alhazred posted:

Honestly, the point where Ezio realized that his whole life was just about delivering a message to a future schmuck he would never meet was pretty cool.

!Klams posted:

Why are there rules to magic?

Why did that one guy go "No, it's too hard for devs to make a game where there's a fire magic spell that makes you go fast, you'd have to have some complex rune system"? It's so ingrained in us that 'go fast = wind magic' that even deviating the 'element' it's associated with is brain breaking.

Like it's 'the power to do whatever your imagination creates' and yet even keeping within the realm of 'elements' people are lost.

A guy who has gravity magic can travel via gravity. He can teleport beneath anything that gets lifted up, with the distance increasing with the size of the object. That isn't hard to program, or hard to understand, or really much of a creative stretch 'at all'. But it definitely isn't showing up in a computer game ever, because teleport is either a scroll, lightning or mental magic (which can also make a 'telekinetic shield' or make you go invisible) or at a push related to shadows.

These things aren't real. Magic is literally 'whatever you can think of'. Why does everyone always stick so hard to a coda about it?

Caesar Saladin posted:

I played Spec Ops when it came out with no idea it was anything but an army man shooter and it was extremely cool and surprising and compelling. If you have a bunch of buildup from forums its probably not as good, but I had no idea what they were going to do. The lack of choices in the game is also good.

Doctor J Off posted:

I want to point out that FF9s card game is better than the one in FF8. People didn't get it because the rules are complex and obtuse, and the game doesn't explain any of it at all

Rutibex posted:

Barudak posted:

I do not understand how battlefield is supposed to be fun when 90% of the playtime is spent hoping to be able to interact with an opposing player.

deep dish peat moss posted:

It also did essentially the same thing Spec Ops: The Line did which was try to make the player feel emotionally responsible for the digital, pre-programmed lives of simulated designated enemies in a videogame by... telling you how much they didn't deserve to die after you killed them? But because their inclusion in that game and that sort of storytelling means that the purpose of their entire existence is to be killed to drive an emotional point, you were helping them fill their existence's only purpose by killing them, which is what their creators intended for them, so...? I don't know, both of those beloved games totally failed to resonate with me because they work under the presupposition that the player can't differentiate intelligent life from simulated pixels with rudimentary AI.

satanic splash-back posted:

Games with buyable skins or whatever are all gambling for broke brained idiots and children (who will grow up to be broken brain idiots), and if you even slightly enjoy them, you're being targeted by mind destroying advertisement and probably should stay away from anything at all actually addictive.