User information for Jerry S Ku

Real Name
Jerry S Ku
Nickname
None given.
Email
Concealed by request
Description
Homepage
Signed On
September 26, 2002
Supporter
-
Total Posts
132 (Novice)
User ID
14618
Search For:
Sort Results:
Ascending
Descending
Limit Results:
 
132 Comments. 7 pages. Viewing page 5.
Newer [  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  ] Older
13.
 
Re: No subject
Oct 1, 2003, 14:51
13.
Re: No subject Oct 1, 2003, 14:51
Oct 1, 2003, 14:51
 
This is pretty fun, and I do think the teammates can be a vital part of your game. Personally, I get my ass kicked when I have no teammates, especially by the machine gun guys. But with teammates, I can position the team to where we're all blasting away at him from different angles. However, much of the game does make you feel like the teammates are just extra guns on your shoulders. But on the final map, there's a HUGE battlefield with dozens of enemies coming at you.. and you can really setup a cool battle there. It's too bad Io Interactive didn't make this a common aspect of the game.

For years I've thought that instead of making multiplayer FPS games where each player only controls himself, and the AI is totally removed from gameplay, I thought game designers should've designed a system where the game was only 4 or 8 players... but each player had a large number of AI squaddies to command around. Of course, they'd be weaker than the player characters, but the NPCs would give PCs a lot of control. It's simple really. People WANT to be the boss of people. They want to feel control and power over something. FPS games rarely give you that control, outside of stuff like Rainbow Six. Also, people like to have victory over MANY others. In multiplayer, the bottom 50% of players are usually getting their asses kicked. But with this system, every player in the game is doing better than the AI and can feel like they're skillful by simply killing AIs by the dozens.

If you ever play Battlezone 2, you can do this. You boss around AI players while playing against just a couple other human players. Anyway, I hope games like Freedom Fighters get popular, and that it eventually makes it way to multiplayer combat.


5.
 
Re: No subject
Sep 30, 2003, 20:18
5.
Re: No subject Sep 30, 2003, 20:18
Sep 30, 2003, 20:18
 
LOL, at the end of this game, you fight through billions of Iraqi soldiers... destroy thousands of tanks, jet fighters... half your team is dead by the time you reach your ultimate goal: an empty room with cobwebs.

34.
 
German battles
Sep 30, 2003, 01:06
34.
German battles Sep 30, 2003, 01:06
Sep 30, 2003, 01:06
 
On the Day of Defeat history forums, it's said that the Germans had higher kill ratios than the Americans, and obviously far higher than the Russians. Technologically speaking in the ETO, Germans were at the top, Americans 2nd, Russians 3rd. So, playing the German side of a war (already done in dozens of flight sims and strategy games) would be interesting in that you get cool weps like the StG-44, Tiger tanks, and so forth. Plus, you'd get to play a lot of interesting "you're totally outnumbered" missions.

There really is no decent reason for the lack of German viewpoints in FPS games, it's all nationalist bullshit along with a great deal of ignorance. FPS games cater to some of the youngest (and most naive, sorry) people in our society, so it makes sense that FPS designers don't want to take the risk and spark some controversy where some young impressionable kid becomes a neo-nazi, in "somewhat related to Call of Duty German campaign" thing.

Meanwhile, flight sims and strategy games get away with Axis campaigns because their audience is almost entirely made up of 30 yr olds and up. This all being said, it continues to make me mildly sick that game designers are profiting off the deaths of millions of people. Real war and real death should not be used for entertainment. Or at the very least, EA and their WW2 FPS making cohorts should be giving SOME profits to the families of war victims (regardless of nationality). Afterall, the vast majority of the millions of dead soldiers in the 20th century recieved very little pay... and their families probably saw nothing. Meanwhile, EA execs are pulling in gigantic salaries, right off the corpses of history. Gee willickers.

As for the A-bombing of Japan, it was a propaganda effort of the US to say that the average Japanese citizen would fight to the death, and die by the millions at the hands of potential American invaders, in a wave of suicidal attacks with sharp bamboo sticks (not kidding).

Nevermind that Japan had zero offensive capability, it's air and naval forces consistently and easily wiped out in massively lop-sided kill ratios (favoring the US, duh), and thus posed no threat to the US or any of the surrounding nations. In short, in the same way that the US never had to invade Iraq and destroy Saddam Hussein back in '91 after Kuwait was liberated and the Iraqi military crushed, Japan never needed to be invaded since it was harmless months before the dropping of the A-bomb. The A-bomb was dropped as a measure of economics, not a matter of humanitarian sacrifice. Continued bombing, blockades, and air supremacy was far more expensive than just blowing up 200,000 people. (For further reference, see the declassified US policy towards China back in the day..... where the US was fully prepared to nuke millions of Chinese civilians if an invasion of Taiwan was launched. Why? Because it was cheaper/better to kill millions of Chinese than to risk American lives.)

So yeah. German battles are OK. Heh.

49.
 
I love this game
Sep 22, 2003, 02:32
49.
I love this game Sep 22, 2003, 02:32
Sep 22, 2003, 02:32
 
I used to be a huge fan of beat-em-up games on the NES and SNES, but then i switched to PC and never really saw anything new come onto the scene (besides CAPCOM's fun Aliens vs Predator). Beat'em ups are ENTIRELY about co-op play, huge amounts of baddies and chaotic action. It's great to see that 2 player will be featured in this game. LOTR RotK is a huge rejuvenation of the genre for me, and i absolutely love it. I don't even know the combos or camera controls yet.

18.
 
Cool
Sep 21, 2003, 16:25
18.
Cool Sep 21, 2003, 16:25
Sep 21, 2003, 16:25
 
I'm no console fan, but it's nice to have some simple console-type games you can play with your girlfriend. If Co-op is in the PC version, i'm gettin this one :-P

I wish more multiplayer console games would come out on the PC, especially games like Dreamcast's Armada, Hunter: The Reckoning, or even Gauntlet Legends. They're simple, but can require a lot of time investment to complete, plus it's can be easier to get 4 people together on the Internet than in a single house. And u can always use voice chat software..

9.
 
sounds like this would help pirates
Sep 7, 2003, 13:56
9.
sounds like this would help pirates Sep 7, 2003, 13:56
Sep 7, 2003, 13:56
 
this sounds like it would help pirates. They'd only need to pirate a single CD key, maybe from some old boxed copy of HL from years ago, and they could use it for every future Valve product that comes online.

39.
 
Re: eck...
Aug 28, 2003, 04:06
39.
Re: eck... Aug 28, 2003, 04:06
Aug 28, 2003, 04:06
 
"The worry I have with this game is that even if it is great, that it will die away because the rts/fps format seems to have such a limited audience."

I think the primary problem behind the majority of RTS/FPS games' market failures are that the games are just not that fun to play, as they are often marred by some screwy "unique, interesting, fresh" idea that's "never been done before." RTS/FPS hybrid people seem obsessed with breaking new ground.... they do break new ground, while breaking the game.

In Natural Selection, the Marine experience is one of the least exciting FPS experiences you can find in the FPS industry. Seriously, sit back and compare it to every other FPS game you've played. You find more in common with a "on rails shooter", like a slow plodding tank, more than any typical FPS shooter. Then there's the MASSIVE reliance on good commanders, which effectively makes sure the game is totally unenjoyable 90% of the time, for 50% of the server's players (all marines), unless in some sort of hardcore clan match.

In Allegiance, a freakish reliance on human players to fill the ranks of the game seriously limits this game's "24/7" playability. When i was beta testing Allegiance years ago, I could see that there'd be no chance in hell it'd succeed as a pay-to-play model. It failed beyond my predictions. The physics model is just great if you're trying to bring people a new experience. But guess what, not a single space sim that has used that kind of physics model has succeeded, market-wise, yet. I-War 1 and 2, anyone? Not exactly household names. But of course, critically praised... Should've gone the standard X-wing/Freespace route.
Then there's the pod respawn system. Oh brother. Shoulda gone the Airwarrior route and forced respawning players to spawn at the next sector over, or risk taking off in a low-quality ship.

Other things Allegiance should NOT have followed from Airwarrior/Warbirds.... forcing people to man turrets. Should have been AI controlled. Hell, all bombers should be AI-controlled, human optional, gunners at any time. AI should be everywhere in Allegiance, controlling dozens of weak mini ships, bringing about truly big battles regardless of player count. There should be at least 2-6 capital ships throughout the game at all times. Bombers flying all over the place.
Allegiance didn't deserve to succeed. (check it out for free at www.freeallegiance.org)

Battlezone 1, never played. Battlezone 2, great game, made the BattleStrat MOD for it. Too bad BZ2's boxed gameplay was EXTREMELY slow and small-scale (still fun, albeit in small quantities). More like a TACTICAL game than a strategy game. The graphical effects were far too modest. The "break new ground" idea of a resource model was a joke (where # of resource income towers only determines MAXIMUM resource count, not SPEED of income). 70% of the units had no utility whatsoever. Human players had an immense ability to butcher entire squads of AI units. It's too bad Activision didn't support this game with patches and fixes up the wazoo, could've made it into a timeless classic.... especially since it was so moddable. Still, boxed BZ2 deserved to fail.. selling for $5 a month after a retail (part of a 6 game CD value package!)

I'm in the Savage Beta too, and it's fun. I don't think it'll become a smash hit, as there isn't much emphasis on guns, and the hand-to-hand combat isn't RPG-ish enough to tap into that crowd. But from what i can tell, it deserves to do better than every other FPS/RTS hybrid to date.

8.
 
Re: Doh!
Aug 27, 2003, 23:29
8.
Re: Doh! Aug 27, 2003, 23:29
Aug 27, 2003, 23:29
7.
 
Doh!
Aug 27, 2003, 23:26
7.
Doh! Aug 27, 2003, 23:26
Aug 27, 2003, 23:26
 
Doh! I played through Diablo 2 when it first came out (just normal difficulty), had fun, but didn't see a reason to play it more. Recently I reinstalled the game and have sunk 25+ hours into the game, been so long since i played.. it's like it's totally new. I wish I had known the 1.10 patch was such a game changer.... i would've put off the whole endeavor until then.

The improvements listed on the Blizzard site are massive.... reading strategy guides for Diablo 2, you can tell a great deal of players, like me, find much of the game skills to be severely flawed or useless!

10.
 
5 percent?!
Aug 14, 2003, 13:28
10.
5 percent?! Aug 14, 2003, 13:28
Aug 14, 2003, 13:28
 
The plaintiff lawyers cost $125,000 to do this case. And then Gamestop's lawyers probably cost around the same. So it's like $300,000 to get 5% off for people. Eh? And don't forget that the majority of people who bought games from these guys in the past 3 years do NOT have their reciept still.

24.
 
Re: No subject
Aug 11, 2003, 13:41
24.
Re: No subject Aug 11, 2003, 13:41
Aug 11, 2003, 13:41
 
wave-based respawn, coupled with well designed maps, introduce a great deal of tactical elements that simply never exist in Counter-strike. I've played Firearms, and Firearms is definately not coupled with well designed maps.. or good gameplay of any sort if you ask me. The maps are extremely linear, fighting occurs in the same places over and over. Ambushes in unexpected areas or flanks are very rare. Also, when you ARE flanked, combat occurs at such a sluggish and clumsy pace that it's rarely worth it to ambush in the first place. The combat is repetitive, and unexciting. I don't remember seeing a DOD-like capture and hold system, either.

In CS, most servers enable "kill indicators" that appear in the top right. Thus, as time progresses, you constantly have a general sense of just how many enemies are left to deal with, and how many allies you have. DOD feels a lot closer to what a real war situation would be like.. you have a fog of war, you don't know what areas of the maps are being attacked in greater numbers than others, and camping positions are always changing due to the fact that battle lines are being redrawn every second. In CS, when both teams spawn, they have a rough estimate as to how likely it is for an enemy to be in a certain area, and so it's not uncommon to see the same areas being fought over.. again and again.

Another symptom of round-based games is that they do tend to have VERY simplistic maps that are often balanced so that both teams don't feel cheapened by certain powerful positions.

And again, the idea that wave-based respawn makes people behave tactically different is just not true. It has no basis, and if you watch people play DOD, you can see that their thought processes are identical to that of round-based games like CS. The only difference is that in DOD, the same processes occur much more often. I played CS for at least a year before making the switch to DOD. I haven't missed CS since. (if you haven't played DOD, you need to. Although it took a severe quality drop with the retail release..... and it is a requirement to download custom models/sounds and especially maps before the game really shines.)

This all being said, it's a shame other wave-based games like Enemy Territory don't take their system to their logical advantages. In ET, people keep respawning, and then going through very linear motions to attack the enemy objectives. If ET had a capture and hold system, things could be a lot better.

4.
 
Re: No subject
Aug 11, 2003, 02:03
4.
Re: No subject Aug 11, 2003, 02:03
Aug 11, 2003, 02:03
 
sorry

This comment was edited on Aug 11, 02:03.
3.
 
Re: No subject
Aug 11, 2003, 02:00
3.
Re: No subject Aug 11, 2003, 02:00
Aug 11, 2003, 02:00
 
.

This comment was edited on Aug 11, 02:02.
15.
 
Death to round-based spawn!
Aug 11, 2003, 00:40
15.
Death to round-based spawn! Aug 11, 2003, 00:40
Aug 11, 2003, 00:40
 
I wish round-based spawn system would be removed, almost entirely, in favor of the capture-and-hold flag system + wave-based respawn system of Day of Defeat. I'm totally baffled as to how people can find round-based spawn system the ideal way to go. It seems mathematically flawed, forcing a majority of players to spend up to 50% of their logged game time in "dead observer" mode. I've played both modes in many games very much, and I see no tactical/strategical scenarios that come up in round-based that wave-based doesn't provide just as well. In DOD, players behave exactly like their round-based counterparts. They fear death, they take cover, they work together.

in counter-terrorism games like Rainbow and CS, it makes sense. But it definately stops making sense when either game type has you in a MASSIVE level where 2 players can spend 5 minutes hunting each other down.. (see America's Army... aka "chatroom w/ game attached to it")

Day of Defeat introduced a round-based system, even on small CS-like maps it was not a popular feature. The game kicked round-based out entirely in the latest version, and no one missed it. CS, America's Army, and Rainbow Six, on the other hand, have never tried to implement a wave-based system...... and I think that if they did, along with suitable maps and capture-and-hold gameplay... that most of their fanbase would never go back to round-based.

1.
 
how is this game?
Aug 10, 2003, 15:08
1.
how is this game? Aug 10, 2003, 15:08
Aug 10, 2003, 15:08
 
Does it feature round-based or wave-based respawns ? (I hate round-based)

12.
 
Re: vets
Aug 7, 2003, 13:33
12.
Re: vets Aug 7, 2003, 13:33
Aug 7, 2003, 13:33
 
The vast majority of war books written by actual soldiers (not the commanders of course) are pretty damn anti-war. They write it as if the experience should never in God's name be sought out..... let alone be made into a friggin video game.

I love war FPS games, but i'm starting to think the concept has too many ethical problems. When Private Ryan came out, we saw alot of veterans on TV saying how war isn't like a movie... where there are heroes running around and all that. No one feels heroic during war, they feel scared shitless. They also said that SPR was good in that the initial scene showed how often soldiers really were.. just dying nameless bodies on a beach somewhere.

Now fast forward to the Medal of Honor games, which are linked to the same people who made SPR (Dreamworks). Now you'd think Dreamworks would say "A video game on war? That's insulting. Get out of my face. You must've missed the point of the movie." But instead, they said "A video game on war? That'll make a LOT of money."

I mean, comeon, SPR was the anti-hero movie in a world full of hero-war-movies. Medal of Honor is THE hero-war-game. Identical to the attitude we saw in 10000000 1940-1990 war movies.

3.
 
PC wont have multiplayer
Jul 27, 2003, 18:46
3.
PC wont have multiplayer Jul 27, 2003, 18:46
Jul 27, 2003, 18:46
 
PC version won't have multiplayer!!!!!!!!!!!!
Argh.

9.
 
Action shooter, not First person shooter
Jul 27, 2003, 18:42
9.
Action shooter, not First person shooter Jul 27, 2003, 18:42
Jul 27, 2003, 18:42
 
If you look at the screenshots, it's not an FPS game, but more like Gauntlet Legends with guns and kung fu (or more closely, the Hunter Reckoning games for XBOX, which I hear is pretty fun). The graphics look really weak though. If it's a budget game for the PC, under $15, it could be OK an arcade-style beat'em'up/shoot'em'up with buddies.

14.
 
this mod sucks
Jul 25, 2003, 23:37
14.
this mod sucks Jul 25, 2003, 23:37
Jul 25, 2003, 23:37
 
Very below average...... they should've hired the people who did The Specialists MOD to do this, from the look of the trailer, it woulda fit perfect

7.
 
Thank God!
Jul 10, 2003, 22:18
7.
Thank God! Jul 10, 2003, 22:18
Jul 10, 2003, 22:18
 
The standard ET maps are absolutely TERRIBLE when it comes to gameplay with more than 15 players. Any servers with good Field Ops class limits will probably alleviate most of the suffering, but nevertheless, ET's maps are hardly works of arts. Especially when compared to tactical beauties available for Day of Defeat custom map fans

132 Comments. 7 pages. Viewing page 5.
Newer [  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  ] Older