Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

User information for SMA

Real Name SMA   
Search for:
 
Sort results:   Ascending Descending
Limit results:
 
 
 
Nickname Scottish Martial Arts
Email Concealed by request - Send Mail
ICQ None given.
Description
Homepage http://
Signed On Jun 16, 2002, 23:16
Total Comments 2682 (Senior)
User ID 13410
 
User comment history
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ] Older >


News Comments > Torment: Tides of Numenera Combat Voting
38. Re: Torment: Tides of Numenera Combat Voting Nov 22, 2013, 17:54 Scottish Martial Arts
 
PHJF wrote on Nov 22, 2013, 17:16:
...have to watch helplessly as a bad situation becomes near hopeless?

You say that like it's a good thing? Having an AI do something a) I couldn't have prepared for and b) while I'm entirely unable to react isn't what I consider fun. Every encounter in Enemy Unknown started with the enemy interrupting my turn (whose fucking turn is it?) and moving to cover.

You cut out the first part which is important: "to make the best decision possible or...". The tension that such situations build is that you never know for certain what the full consequences of your decisions are going to be, and that likewise you'll have a few seconds where you just have to live with those consequences. You don't have perfect knowledge of the battle, and as a result you can walk into an ambush with what you thought was a sound move. You watch as one guy get's killed and another seriously wounded, kicking yourself saying "why didn't I see that coming?" But then it's your turn again: you're in a bad spot but you can ask yourself, "what do I do to get out of this?" Then you come up with a plan and execute. Some of the plan works, some of it doesn't, the enemy has its say, and suddenly the situation is changed for the next turn, demanding that you make new decisions.

What's compelling about this kind of gameplay is that you analyze the situation, make a decision, than find out what the consequences of that decision are. You now find yourself in a new situation, which needs new analysis, which leads to new decisions, which leads to new consequences, which in turn leads to a new situation. It's a continual loop of analysis and decision making, made all the more rich by the copious tactical options which turn-based games provide, where you never know for certain how things are going to turn out, and thus it's always compelling to hit that end turn button, even if things are so tense you've got every digit crossed in the hope things go according to plan. To my mind that is damn compelling gameplay, almost like the difference between, for example, a horror movie which builds an atmosphere of dread and suspense, rather than just repeatedly showing you some gore.

As for the enemy interrupts to find cover in XCOM, I'm not sure anyone actually liked that or thought it added anything to the game.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Torment: Tides of Numenera Combat Voting
36. Re: Torment: Tides of Numenera Combat Voting Nov 22, 2013, 17:04 Scottish Martial Arts
 
dj LiTh wrote on Nov 22, 2013, 16:59:
I suppose neither of you played Xcom Apocalypse? That game did have many short comings but its combat system was pretty awesome. You could have your standard turn based system which was just the same as any other previous Xcom game (1&2) or you could play Real time /w pause. It gave you the best of both worlds. I remember it to this day for that feature alone, the rest of the game meh.

So yes, it can be done correctly and it can appease both camps if done right.

You might want to replay Apocalypse sometime. It was not as clean a split as you seem to be recalling -- it most certainly felt very different from the first two, even in turn-based mode. Likewise, Apocalypse was a pretty garbage game, and the combat system wasn't helping in that regard.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Torment: Tides of Numenera Combat Voting
34. Re: Torment: Tides of Numenera Combat Voting Nov 22, 2013, 16:53 Scottish Martial Arts
 
PHJF wrote on Nov 22, 2013, 16:25:
You guys are fuckin nuts. I've played through the Icewind Dales like a million times. Turn based just isn't remotely visceral enough for combat involving small unit counts. There's too much of a sense of detachment and there's no sense of urgency.

So was the new XCOM game insufficiently visceral for you? Did you find yourself detached from the outcomes, feeling no pressure to make the best decisions or else have to watch helplessly as a bad situation becomes near hopeless? A game can be visceral and immersive, or not, regardless of the combat system used; it comes down to how the game is designed, not which system is used. What can be said for certain however is that real-time systems MUST present the user with a limited tactical toolkit lest they run into paralysis by analysis with the action unfolding around them. Personally, I find those moments in a turn-based system in which you watch the enemy turn unfolding, only to uncover you've made a grievous error and are going to pay for it, to be VERY gripping. "Oh shit, how am I gonna get out of this one now? Well it's my turn again: time to figure something out."
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Torment: Tides of Numenera Combat Voting
30. Re: Torment: Tides of Numenera Combat Voting Nov 22, 2013, 16:12 Scottish Martial Arts
 
Creston wrote on Nov 22, 2013, 13:46:
Combat was so inconsequential in Torment that I was fine with just turning it on and watching my guys wade through the enemies in 10 seconds. I mean, when you're playing a character who literally CANNOT DIE, the entire raison d^etre for combat kinda goes out the window anyway. (Something that Prey never understood, apparently.)


TNO couldn't die, but that didn't mean that death was setback free. PST's focus was definitely on its adventure game elements, but I guess I'm unconvinced that the best approach to a game with a non-combat focus is to make combat crappy, easy, and boring. If you really don't want to focus on combat, then why even include it?
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Torment: Tides of Numenera Combat Voting
29. Re: Torment: Tides of Numenera Combat Voting Nov 22, 2013, 16:08 Scottish Martial Arts
 
dj LiTh wrote on Nov 22, 2013, 13:37:
They should honestly have both as an option to the player.

I'm guessing you never played Arcanum? Tandem real-time/turn-based combat systems have a TERRIBLE record. Someone else mentioned Fallout: Tactics yet that game's "continuous turn-based" mode was just about unplayable. Trying to create a combat system with two separate modes based on entirely separate design paradigms is a lot like creating an OS with two different modes based on entirely different UI approaches -- you get a schizophrenic mess where the competing requirements of one mode detract from the other, and vice-versa.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Torment: Tides of Numenera Combat Voting
18. Re: Torment: Tides of Numenera Combat Voting Nov 22, 2013, 13:19 Scottish Martial Arts
 
vrok wrote on Nov 22, 2013, 13:07:
RTwP is and always has been a complete disaster. TB is the only way to go for a proper party-based RPG.

QFT. You can still salvage a decent game out of RTwP, but the combat is invariably much weaker than it could have been. Couple that with cRPG encounter designers who never seem to have played an RPG -- "I know we'll make a cave, and this cave will be filled trolls, just trolls." -- and the result is games with the potential for rich combat but actually delivering something pretty weak. At this point we have a whole generation of gamers that doesn't know any better -- try convincing your average Dragon Age fan to install DosBox and play Pool of Radiance -- so it's awful hard to break through the background aversion to turn-based as "slow, boring, and not immersive."
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Torment: Tides of Numenera Combat Voting
17. Re: Torment: Tides of Numenera Combat Voting Nov 22, 2013, 13:16 Scottish Martial Arts
 
Creston wrote on Nov 22, 2013, 12:20:
I dunno, Torment seemed to run fine with real-time with pause. I like turn based in a more strategic game like Wasteland 2, but in Torment, where combat isn't the main focus, I'd rather just get on with it and get it moving.

Yeah but NO ONE speaks kindly of PST's combat. Invariably it's "great game but terrible combat." Real-time with pause is an abortion born of the era in which RTSs were taking off, and suddenly turn-based was "old", "outdated", and "the produce of technological limitations". Nevermind that real-time systems, even RTwP systems, have dramatically fewer tactical options lest the user be overwhelmed with complexity, and that even with pause functionality, grafting turn-based rulesets onto a real-time combat systems plays hell with balancing and how things are "supposed" to work. Likewise, the people who do speak so fondly of IE game combat, never seem to have played a Goldbox game. I understand the notion of wanting to deemphasize combat, but if that's the case is the answer to really build a garbage and trivial combat system? Or is it to build encounters where combat isn't the default and highly encouraged solution?
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Warcraft and Warcraft II Coming to Modern PCs "In Some Form or Fashion"
31. No subject Nov 11, 2013, 18:15 Scottish Martial Arts
 
dj LiTh wrote on Nov 11, 2013, 17:34:
Scottish Martial Arts wrote on Nov 11, 2013, 10:27:
Uh, in WC2 the two sides were IDENTICAL until castle phase, and then bloodlust was the only significant difference between Horde and Alliance.

And why is this a big project, Blizzard? WC1 works great in DosBOX, and WC2 still works out of the box, last time I checked.

Actually no, thats not true. Units that were the same tier had different hp and different attack damage. In WC1 it was identical, so check again.

Sorry, you're the one who is misremembering. Here are the unit lists from WC2 to include theirs stats:

http://www.gamefaqs.com/pc/199259-warcraft-ii-tides-of-darkness/faqs/1871
http://www.gamefaqs.com/pc/199259-warcraft-ii-tides-of-darkness/faqs/1874

Note the IDENTICAL statistics between equivalent units. The ONLY difference between sides was with spell casters and the Ranger vs. Berserker, all of which only became unlocked in the Castle tier. Everything else is identical. IDENTICAL. This in fact was one of the reasons I preferred Red Alert at the time: two VERY distinct sides with unique playstyles.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Warcraft and Warcraft II Coming to Modern PCs "In Some Form or Fashion"
25. Re: Both work fine now, remaster them? Nov 11, 2013, 17:28 Scottish Martial Arts
 
JohnBirshire wrote on Nov 11, 2013, 14:15:
I replayed both about a year ago for nostalgia, had no problem whatsoever with them. They work fine now. If they want to "remaster" them with some updates, more modern UI's, widescreen support, etc, great! But just "making them work" is unnecessary.

I'd just settle for making them available through digital distribution. Again, they work fine as is. I still have my disc copies, but I would imagine a lot of people don't. Given that they're both still great games that have held up well, no reason to keep them unavailable for purchase.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Warcraft and Warcraft II Coming to Modern PCs "In Some Form or Fashion"
8. No subject Nov 11, 2013, 10:27 Scottish Martial Arts
 
Uh, in WC2 the two sides were IDENTICAL until castle phase, and then bloodlust was the only significant difference between Horde and Alliance.

And why is this a big project, Blizzard? WC1 works great in DosBOX, and WC2 still works out of the box, last time I checked.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Fallout 3 Turns 5
72. Re: Fallout 3 Turns 5 Oct 31, 2013, 14:53 Scottish Martial Arts
 
Beamer wrote on Oct 31, 2013, 14:46:
The most popular shows on television are all fart jokes, dick jokes and laugh tracks. There's no way Fallout 3 is half as juvenile as Two and a Half Big Bangs.

And how many people do you know that aren't ashamed to admit they like that crap? I don't know if you noticed, but the most popular and talked about TV shows these days aren't The Big Bang Theory or CBS Police Procedural #409, it's stuff like Breaking Bad, Sons of Anarchy, or Boardwalk Empire, i.e. shows that don't go out of their way to insult their viewer's intelligence. Summer action movies still do big business, but then the target audience for your typical Marvel movie has an average age of 10 or so. The bottom line is that video games are pretty much the only medium which doesn't have an alternative to the half-hour network sitcom or the summer action blockbuster, and the reason why that is is that the gaming press has no critical faculty -- their only standard is "am I experiencing some form of enjoyment?" -- and that gamers themselves are all to willing to lap up garbage so long as there is a visceral thrill or two.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Fallout 3 Turns 5
71. Re: Fallout 3 Turns 5 Oct 31, 2013, 14:47 Scottish Martial Arts
 
Likewise, I think it's very telling that no one is really trying to dispute the arguments made by Shihonage or myself. Instead, it's just devolving into "well, like, there's no objective standards for anything, and that's, like, just your opinion, so, like, quit being a mean ol' elitist."  
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Fallout 3 Turns 5
69. Re: Fallout 3 Turns 5 Oct 31, 2013, 14:41 Scottish Martial Arts
 
Prez wrote on Oct 30, 2013, 19:51:
So, so true. Elitists are sad.

What's even more sad is grown men who don't see a problem with liking things that are clearly juvenile. Frankly, the complete lack of critical faculties, and the complete embrace of stupidity as being par for the course, are the reasons why the non-gaming world thinks gamers look more than a bit foolish when they start talking about how their sub-moronic hobby is art. Gaming, for the most part, is no more intelligent than a summer action movie, and it's gamers steadfast refusal to be critical of stupidity that keeps it there.

"But that's like, your opinion, man."
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Fallout 3 Turns 5
61. Re: Fallout 3 Turns 5 Oct 30, 2013, 15:14 Scottish Martial Arts
 
Orogogus wrote on Oct 30, 2013, 14:36:
It's kind of unbelievable how much you've destructed your more-or-less argument that normal, sane people thought Fallout 3 was bad. Holy crap.

Well when it comes to video games, its long been apparent that normal, sane people think they ought to be stupid and never assume that the audience has any intelligence. If Fallout 3 had been a movie, no one over the age of 12 would have been caught dead saying they liked it, just like no one says that they like Michael Bay movies: that shit is stupid, and anyone with any taste isn't afraid to say so. But with video games, stupid reigns supreme, and anyone that suggests that we should aim a little higher is clearly neither normal nor sane.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Fallout 3 Turns 5
59. Re: Fallout 3 Turns 5 Oct 30, 2013, 13:07 Scottish Martial Arts
 
Verno wrote on Oct 30, 2013, 09:18:
I can't believe someone wrote a wall of text over Megaton. Internet you never stop surprising me.

It was more just rage over being told to "read about the Cold War" when the guy in question pretty obviously didn't know much about nuclear strategy or the technologies that fueled it.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Fallout 3 Turns 5
58. Re: Fallout 3 Turns 5 Oct 30, 2013, 12:56 Scottish Martial Arts
 
InBlack wrote on Oct 30, 2013, 05:29:
After that nerdgasm, I would simply like to add that I found the HUGE crater from the UNEXPLODED bomb very funny and completely in tune with Fallouts' series sense of zany humour. Unlike the rest of the game which completely missed that beat.

Well I guess that's the other thing, in that the "zaniness" of Fallout 3 was completely out of step with what was in Fallout 1 and 2. Except for maybe a half-dozen lines, Fallout 1 wasn't a particularly funny game, and was only zany in the sense that the 50s vision of future technology looks rather quaint and goofy to our eyes. With Fallout 2, you can definitely argue that it was a funny game, although a lot of that humor was either very black or centered around pop culture references, i.e. the random encounter where Brotherhood of Steel Knights are searching for a "holy hand grenade". The latter certainly qualifies as zany, I suppose, but then it was a hidden random encounter that required a high luck score to see. Crap like Three Dog, the super hero town, and Liberty Prime marked a pretty strong tonal shift.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Fallout 3 Turns 5
54. Re: Fallout 3 Turns 5 Oct 29, 2013, 21:52 Scottish Martial Arts
 
Kitkoan wrote on Oct 29, 2013, 19:31:
No, only you must have a simian intellect, because you seem to know nothing about anything to do with rocket propelled systems, force of impact, how sand moves when impacted on, etc...

As I pointed out, mass and FORCE in the sand would cause a crator. If you're blowing up bombs across the world, you're not dropping them like Hiroshima, you are going to launch them with a rocket propulsion system and that doesn't have a max speed of terminal velocity. Again, the mentioning of a meteor, it has force behind it and not the max of terminal velocity. This is the nuke, and the back end has all the signs of a small jet engine to give a nuke added speed, causing a crater in sand. And since sand isn't the most dense it would easily make a crater like that with a large object with enough force behind, like a jet engine would grant.

You have to remember, Fallout is based on the Cold War. More accurately about what happen if Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) happened. These nukes weren't going to be dropped like the ones in WW2, they were to be rocket propelled with a lot of force to make sure they would a) hit their target more accurately and b) not be shot down in air causing a "dud". It's what made the Cold War so scary was that if one side starting attacking, then the other side would follow and since they are all rocket propelled then they couldn't be stopped, there were no airplanes to shoot down.

Seriously, read and learn about the Cold War and all the Fallout games will make more sense.

Are you fucking kidding me? That's a low drag free fall bomb with stabilization fins, not the warhead of an ICBM.

ICBM Warhead: http://up-ship.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/mk12a.jpg

vs.

A model of the FREE-FALL bomb which was dropped on Hiroshima: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Little_boy.jpg

Which does the Megaton bomb look like?

Furthermore, the kind of nuclear warfare you describe characterized the Cold War from the mid-60s on, i.e. when ICBM tech was sufficiently mature to have a true nuclear triad and for Mutually Assured Destruction to be a workable nuclear deterrent doctrine, but not during the 50s -- when the operative deterrent doctrine was NOT MAD but Massive Retaliation -- the decade Fallout takes its aesthetic cues from. Have you never heard of the Strategic Air Command? Throughout the Cold War, but especially during the 50s, the US had B-47 and then B-52 strategic bombers pre-fueled and armed with live nuclear bombs on constant alert, ready at a moments notice to penetrate Soviet airspace on a suicide mission to drop at least some of their payload. Likewise, the first ICBM units didn't even become operational until 1960 or so, and it wasn't until the early 70s with the improvement in rocketry brought by the Space Race and the emergence of MIRV technology that it became clear that nuclear war would be fought primarily with long range missiles, with strategic bomber fleets playing a secondary, almost diversionary, role. The point is that without an effective ICBM fleet, you can't assure the other guy's destruction, because strategic bombers have a tendency to get shot down by interceptors, hence we could promise to launch "Massive Retaliation" throwing everything we've got at the adversary, but both of us will probably survive the exchange. In other words, in the 50s, there was no Mutually Assured Destruction except as a game theory proposal, because the delivery methods for nukes were still too prone to interception. There were of course shorter range missiles that could carry nuclear warheads during the 50s and early 60s, but this meant having a launch site relatively close to the target, i.e. Cuba or Turkey. But all of this is tangential because what we see in Megaton is a free-fall nuclear bomb of the sort which would likely have been carried on a B-52 or Soviet Tu-16 around 1956 or so.

And again, a freefall bomb LIKE WHAT WE SEE IN MEGATON, would not create an impact crater. It might create an impact hole, burying itself into a cavity beneath the earth, but not a football field sized impact crater.

If you're going to lecture me on nuclear theory and Cold War history, it might be helpful to get your chronology of technological development and associated deterrent doctrines right, i.e. circa mid-50s, strategic bombers were the primary delivery platform threat, and mutually assured destruction was not yet the deterrent doctrine de jour.

This comment was edited on Oct 30, 2013, 01:21.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Fallout 3 Turns 5
50. Re: Fallout 3 Turns 5 Oct 29, 2013, 17:06 Scottish Martial Arts
 
Go to the fridge dude and pour yourself a nice cold glass of "get over it" juice.

Meh, I think the thing that gets me isn't that the game kinda sucked, but that there are still plenty of retards out there who not only don't see the gross stupidity of settling a village around unexploded ordinance -- unexploded ordinance which made a massive crater despite not actually exploding -- but are also willing to defend it. Bethesda must have chained some monkeys to typewriters when writing the script for that game, but I guess when your target audience has a rather simian intellect to begin with, that isn't such a bad move.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Fallout 3 Turns 5
47. Re: Fallout 3 Turns 5 Oct 29, 2013, 13:07 Scottish Martial Arts
 
Prez wrote on Oct 29, 2013, 08:05:
Fallout 3 was way over-hated by many gamers. Despite some rough edges it was an excellent first try at transitioning the Fallout world into a living breathing 3D world. Fallout purists made up there minds to hate it the second it was announced; it was far better than anyone thought it would turn out to be. Great game regardless of what the haters say.

I like how your argument is to dismiss out of hand any specific complaints FO3 detractors might have and then declare by fiat that they are wrong. Must have gone to the Bethesda Writer's School of Informal Logic!
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Fallout 3 Turns 5
30. Re: Fallout 3 Turns 5 Oct 29, 2013, 04:03 Scottish Martial Arts
 
My guess is he was probably referring to the direction of AAA development. Thanks to kickstarter and the return of medium budget, niche products to the PC, the future does indeed look a lot better than it did, say, five years ago. Certainly if the comparison is Fallout 1 and 2 to Fallout 3, I would definitely argue that decline had been at work.  
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
2682 Comments. 135 pages. Viewing page 7.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ] Older >


footer

.. .. ..

Blue's News logo