Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
Comments
Hey, you didn't specify platform or online capacity
I said it mid-joking, but now that I realize it Perfect Dark's multiplayer was damn good. The customization was great,and the AI was pretty competent too. The only problem was that Perfect Dark was a pretty taxing game for the N64 so if you were 4 players split-screen + Sims it ran at like 10 fps. Of course, the Xbox Live remake fixed that
Does swimming in Monster Hunter Tri ever become less awkward?
And yeah, I seem to already have the games on that list that I'm interested in, but I think I'll hold off on Uncharted anyways until I'm absolutely sure.
Thanks for the help.
No.
Nope. I don't actually own a copy, and not enough experience with it to give an honest criticism. But it's better than Uncharted's multiplayer, at least going by the little play time I have. The latter game's multi suffers from the fact that Uncharted games are made to be cheesy action films in vidya format, with the vast majority of the development resources going towards the singleplayer part of the game. The multiplayer is competently done, as I said, but it was never going to be up to scratch compared to games built primarily for multiplayer.
If you want a silly action romp in the tradition of Indiana Jones to play by yourself, then Uncharted is a great purchase. The multiplayer can be an honestly fun diversion, but eh. It feels like multiplayer for multiplayer's sake tacked on to a game obviously designed for the singleplayer experience, rather than a carefully crafted state of play in its own right. If you can get Uncharted for cheap, then there's not much to lose and I'd encourage you to go with the gut purchase, but it's not worth anyone's money to pay full price for Uncharted if they're looking for good multiplayer.
How's about you tell us why you were thinking of Uncharted and what you're looking for, and we'll narrow it down a bit further? I say "we" because I have to go to sleep shortly, so I'm hoping someone else will pick up the slack. If you're after a good shooter, then others here can probably help you better than I can, anyway.
Sort of? Just about every mechanic in Monster Hunter is built around the relationship between what you want and your limitations. It becomes less awkward in the same way that using slow weapons becomes less awkward, dodging attacks becomes less awkward and managing your items becomes less awkward. It's about cutting out the fat in the way you play and being efficient.
If you're having trouble with water battles, then I suggest the lance, in any case. Its lack of mobility is less of an issue under water, and its sturdy block goes a long way towards making the confusing parts of water combat less painful. For the most part, though, you just do what you do on land -- move. Make sure you're spending as much time on the flanks or rear of the enemy as possible, unless you're using a hammer (in which case, hit them in the face). Most monster attacks are tracked to where you were about a second ago, or something like that, so if you continue to move, they'll end up spending themselves on an attack that hits thin air (thick water?) and there's your opening.
Water battles are in the minority, anyway. Most monsters you fight will be on solid ground, and every monster that fights in the water also fights on land (at least as far as I've got in the game). So unless they're being really stubborn or running from you, an aquatic monster in a zone with dry land can usually be lured into a ground battle.
Chivalry--based on the gameplay I have seen--is an incredibly silly game that sometimes gets touted as very serious and realistic for reasons that I cannot begin to fathom.
A little question to the people who have finished Bioshock Infinite (major spoilers):
I'm just curious which you think it means.
Hey Alex, what should I look for in weapons in Monster Hunter 3? Besides raw damage I mean? I'm looking at the wiki and it has stuff like affinity, special elements for each weapon, and number of villages/taverns needed, and I have little idea what all this means.
Affinity, if it's positive, gives a chance of a critical hit. If it's negative it gives the chance of... the opposite of a critical hit (pretty much like if your weapon was deflected due to not being sharp enough). For the basic damage elements, those add some amount of damage to your weapon which is modified based on a monster's elemental resistances (which actually I think are also dependent on the body part you hit, but don't worry about that). You can usually tell roughly what a monster's elemental strengths/weaknesses are by looking at the elemental properties of the armor that's made from their parts. Other elements like poison/sleep/etc. increment a counter when a monster is hit by them. The counter decreases over time, and if it builds up high enough they get affected with a status effect. The actual effect of a status is independent of what weapon you use to inflict it, but how easy it is to cause it is affected by your weapon. Also, it gets increasingly difficult to apply the same effect to a monster each time it's applied.
In general, the difference between using an elemental weapon and a purely attack-focused weapon aren't really too significant from what I've seen, but they're probably useful to have if you know that the thing you're fighting is weak to that particular element or status. Status-inflicting weapons in particular probably aren't very useful in multiplayer, since you'd probably want to have more control over exactly when you inflict sleep/paralyze, and so you'll probably just have a gunner do it for you and/or use items. High affinity is always good though.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/123044-Ubisoft-Says-to-Expect-More-Annual-Sequels
Um...a bit late for that, isn't it?
Also.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/123045-Tomb-Raider-Launch-Best-in-Franchises-History
What is it with game publishers and absurdly high sales predictions?
Thinking only of short term profits instead of gradual stuff over time? Granted the industry has created a mechanism where most sales happen within a few months of the game coming out.
That explains stuff like annual releases, but there's stuff like Dead Space where every game in the series has sold a pretty consistent amount, but for every game since the first, they expect to sell double or more. Basically just ignoring all rationality.
You know what they say, if you believe in endless growth, you're either an idiot or an economist. Or a businessman. Something like that.
So...Disney shut down Lucasarts and fired its staff, since they see it as more of a license than an actual company they wanted to own.
>
It sucks that those people lost their jobs, but to be honest, LucasArts is a shadow of its former self. They used to make excellent adventure games and Star Wars tie-ins, but a lot of skilled people have left them over the years and they've suffering from Rare syndrome.
That is true.
But Disney still wants to make the shitty tie-ins. They just don't want to have to employ a regular staff for it.
We'll see how that goes, I suppose. I would rather they had kept at least some of the LucasArts employees, if only to safeguard game industry jobs, but there's no guarantee they won't establish a new studio in its place, or use a consistent third party developer. There's a range of ways they could handle the use of the Star Wars license in video games. I doubt it'll be significantly worse than what Lucasarts was doing, and it may even be better.
After all, Lucasarts has done stuff like canning Battlefront 3, and changing Jedi Knight 3 into The Force Unleashed.
Great, more super-experienced A-list developers flooding the job market. That's exactly what we need right now.
Hey Alex, have you seen this?
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/260688528/clang
I'm pretty sure I've seen it already posted somewhere, I'd not be surprised if it was him back on TVT.
He has talked about it here before, probably in the Kickstarter thread.
A friend lent me his PS3. It has Braid. Funsies.
There's also FFXIII. Now I see why people call it a movie, but that doesn't sound too bad now.
Yeah, I'm really pleased this is actually a thing. The historical martial arts resources are astounding in that they actually exist, and are far more sophisticated than media or established historical study suggest. So it's puzzling to me why games haven't used these resources to their advantage, even if they don't go in for the whole hog, you know? Even just using some of the stuff would be to the advantage of many a game, because you can do stuff with a real sword that most games don't even begin to consider. Even if sword techniques had to be "special moves" or whatever, they'd be really unique in the context of gaming.
But most of all, what game designers and devs don't seem to understand is that any good method of using a sword is a logical system with constraints -- the essential theoretical basis is similar to a game, which means sword combat is predisposed to being deeply applied in a gaming context. Clang is the first attempt at going all the way with it, though, so I'm looking forward to seeing how it shapes up.
The only thing I'm not convinced about is the peripheral. If you want to make historical sword combat consumable for a wide audience (which is what this looks to be leading up to, if all goes well), then using a control scheme based around common tools would probably be much better. You can get realistic sword control (within the constraints of an actual system of fighting) with two buttons and a directional control (like a mouse or control stick). What's important here is the system moreso than the peripheral elements, like controllers. After all, in other kinds of games, we don't control the minutia of character movements -- we give them commands via the controls and the character executes them competently.
After all, a peripheral is never going to simulate the experience of swinging a steel sword around. But using a system of animations, commands and abilities accurate to swordsmanship will simulate the mode of thinking a swordsman has to use. Clang has that systematic element down pat, probably, I just hope it's intuitive without the peripheral.
So I thought I know what's going on in La-Mulana since, well, I've played it once before (the old version).
I started playing the new version. Was doing pretty well. Got the Holy Grail and stuff, even.
There was this curious block in the ceiling.
I whip it. No response.
I get under it, jump up to it.
It promptly crushes me.